Zevachim 43a (מג.) — the Talmud in English

And the meal-offering

of a voluntary offering

of priests,

is entirely burned, and it is not rendered permitted by anything else, since it is not subject to kemitza.

And the meal-offering of the anointed priest.

This is the daily meal-offering of the High Priest, half of which he offers in the morning and half in the evening, and it too is entirely burned.

And the blood

which renders the offering permitted, but is not itself rendered permitted by anything else.

And libations that come on their own,

whether one undertook to bring only libations, or whether they are libations brought because of an offering, but he brought his offering today and its libations tomorrow, are not subject to piggul, because they do not become piggul through the offering. If, however, he brought them together with his offering, then if he rendered the offering piggul, the libations too become piggul,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Even

libations

that come with the animal

on that same day are not subject to liability on account of piggul. Since he can offer them on the following day, it follows that the offering does not render them permitted to be offered; rather, they render themselves permitted.

A log of oil belonging to a leper

brought at the time of his purification, whose remainder is eaten:

Rabbi Shimon says:

If he rendered the leper’s guilt-offering piggul, the log of oil did not thereby become piggul, even though the placing of the oil on the leper depends on the guilt-offering, as it is stated: “And the priest shall place from the oil ... upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering” [Leviticus 14:28]. If he did not first place some of the blood of the guilt-offering, the placing of the oil is ineffective. Nevertheless, since a person may bring his guilt-offering today and the log of oil up to ten days later, it follows that the guilt-offering does not render it permitted, and since it has no permitting factors

one is not liable for it on account of piggul.

And Rabbi Meir says:

A log of oil that came together with the guilt-offering on that same day,

one is liable for it on account of piggul

if he rendered the guilt-offering piggul, since

the blood of the guilt-offering renders it permitted,

and therefore it becomes piggul through it.

b.

And anything that has permitting factors

that render it permitted,

whether for

the eating of

a person or for

burning on the

altar, one is liable for it

for the item rendered permitted

on account of piggul:

The burnt-offering,

which is entirely burned on the altar, except for its hide, which is given to the priests: the sprinkling of

its blood renders its flesh permitted for

burning on the

altar,

as it is stated, “And they shall sprinkle the blood,” and afterward it is stated, “And they shall arrange ... the pieces ...” [Leviticus 1],

and

so too it renders

its hide

fit to be given

to the priests,

who have no share in it until after the blood of the burnt-offering has been sprinkled.

The bird burnt-offering,

which comes from turtledoves or young pigeons and is entirely burned: the pressing out of

its blood

against the wall of the altar

renders its flesh permitted for

burning on the

altar.

The bird sin-offering,

which is eaten entirely by the priests: the sprinkling of

its blood renders its flesh permitted to the priests.

The bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned,

whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary and whose flesh and hide are burned at the place of the ashes: the sprinkling of

their blood renders their sacrificial portions permitted

to be offered

on the altar. Therefore, if he entertained a piggul thought concerning the sacrificial portions while sprinkling the blood, intending to offer them outside their designated time, the sacrificial portions became piggul.

Rabbi Shimon says: Every

placement of blood

that is not

performed

on the outer altar, as with a peace-offering,

with regard to which the law of piggul is stated and whose blood is sprinkled on the outer altar,

one is not liable for it on account of piggul.

Therefore, with regard to the bulls and goats that are burned, whose blood is placed not on the outer altar but inside the Sanctuary, a piggul thought does not render them piggul.

Gemara:

Ulla said: A handful that is piggul which they placed upon the altar,

although it is disqualified, nevertheless, through placing it on the altar

its piggul is removed from it!

The reason is:

If it renders others

namely, the remainder of the meal-offering

subject to piggul, surely it itself

can have its piggul removed from it.

The Gemara challenges this:

What is Ulla saying?

He has stated here a reason that contradicts his own words. He came to explain why the piggul is removed from it, yet he offered as the reason that the handful causes piggul, for if it causes others to become piggul, surely it can cause its own piggul to be removed?!

The Gemara answers:

This is what Ulla is saying:

Ulla means:

If

you would say that because of its disqualification and its piggul it

is not accepted,

and its burning is therefore not considered a valid burning, then when one burns the handful intending to eat the remainder of the meal-offering tomorrow, how could the remainder become piggul? Piggul takes effect only once its permitting factors have been offered, namely, once the handful has been burned in accordance with its law. Since its burning is not accepted, it follows that it was not offered in accordance with its law. If so,

how can it cause others to become piggul?

It must necessarily be said that at the time of its burning its piggul is removed from it. This is what Ulla said: If it is accepted so as to render others subject to piggul, surely it itself is accepted.

The Gemara challenges this:

What does Ulla teach us

through this law that the piggul is removed from the handful, and for which law do we need this statement?

If

he comes to say

that one is not liable for it

for eating it

on account of piggul,

there is no novelty here. Even if the handful had not been placed on the altar, one is not liable for eating it on account of piggul, since

we already learned

in our Mishna:

These are the items for which one is not liable on account of piggul:

the handful, the frankincense, the Levona, the priests’ meal-offering, the anointed priest’s meal-offering, the meal-offering of libations, and the blood.

This is because all these items do not render other things permitted; rather, they themselves are rendered permitted.

Rather,

it may be said that this law concerning the removal of its piggul is relevant to the case where a handful that is piggul has been placed on the altar: it may not subsequently be taken down, in accordance with the law concerning disqualified offerings on the altar,

that if they have gone up, they need not come down.

But this too has already been

learned:

Flesh

that remained

throughout the entire night outside the altar,

and that which went out,

flesh or sacrificial portions that went outside the Temple courtyard,

and that which became impure,

flesh or sacrificial portions that became impure,

and

an offering

that was slaughtered

with a piggul thought of

outside its designated time,

or with a disqualifying thought of

outside its designated place—

all these,

if they have gone up

on the altar,

need not come down.

It is thus explicitly established that something piggul which has gone up need not come down. What, then, does Ulla teach us?

Rather,

it may be said that Ulla comes to teach a new law concerning the removal of its piggul:

if they have come down,

the disqualified items, from the altar, they should again

be placed upon it,

because their disqualification has been removed.

This too has already been learned

in the Mishna, which states otherwise: All these disqualified items mentioned,

just as if they have gone up they need not come down, so too if they have come down

from the altar, they

may not go up again!?

The Gemara answers:

No, it is necessary

for Ulla’s ruling only in a case

where the fire has taken hold of them

on the sacrificial portions and flesh that are disqualified. Ulla teaches this with regard to a handful: through the fire taking hold of it, it becomes the altar’s food, and therefore, even though it came down, it should be brought up again. The Mishna’s law that if they came down they may not go up again applies when the fire has not taken hold of them.

And we object:

This too

, this law

Ulla already stated once.

As Ulla said

concerning the words of this Mishna:

They taught

that if they descended, they do not go back up

only

in a case

where the fire had not taken hold of them; but if the fire had taken hold of them, they go back up.

Why, then, did Ulla need to state this law a second time?

And we answer: Ulla's novel point here is that this law applies even to the handful, because

one might have said

that this law—that if the fire had taken hold of them, they go back up—