Zevachim 43a — the Talmud in English

And the meal-offering

of freewill

of priests,

all of it ascends entirely and is not rendered permitted by means of anything else, for it is not scooped.

And the meal-offering of the anointed priest.

The chavitei of the High Priest, which he offers every day, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening; and it too ascends entirely.

And the blood

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

And the libations that come separately,

whether he undertook to bring libations alone, or libations that come because of the offering, but he brought his offering today and its libations tomorrow, there is no piggul in them, since they do not become piggul through the offering. But if he brought them together with his offering, then if he caused piggul in the offering, 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, one is not liable for them 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 of the leper

which comes at the time of his purification, and its remainder is eaten:

Rabbi Shimon says:

If he caused piggul in the leper’s guilt-offering, the log of oil did not thereby become piggul, even though the placing of the oil upon the leper depends upon the guilt-offering, as it is stated: “And the priest shall place from the oil, etc., upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering” [Leviticus 14:28]. And if he did not first give from the blood of the guilt-offering, the placing of the oil has no effect; nevertheless, since a person can 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 matirin,

one is not liable for it on account of piggul.

And Rabbi Meir says:

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

one is liable for it on account of piggul

if he caused piggul in the guilt-offering, since

the blood of the guilt-offering renders it permitted,

and therefore it becomes piggul through it.

B.

And every thing that has matirin

that render it permitted,

whether for

the eating of

a person or for

burning upon the

altar, one is liable for it

for the thing that is 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 upon the

altar,

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

and

so it renders

its hide

fit to be

for the priests,

for they have no share in it except after the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt-offering.

The bird burnt-offering,

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

its blood

onto the wall of the altar

renders its flesh permitted for

burning upon the

altar.

The bird sin-offering,

which is eaten entirely by the priests: the sprinkling of

its blood renders its flesh permitted for the priests.

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

whose blood is sprinkled in the Sanctuary, while their 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 caused piggul in the sacrificial portions at the time of sprinkling the blood, and intended to offer them outside their time, the sacrificial portions became piggul.

Rabbi Shimon says: Every

giving of blood

that is not

performed

upon the outer altar like a peace-offering,

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

one is not liable for it on account of piggul.

Therefore, the bulls and goats that are burned, whose blood is not given upon the outer altar but in the Sanctuary, are not made piggul by a thought of piggul.

Gemara:

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

even though it is disqualified, nevertheless through its placement upon the altar

its piggul departed from it!

And the reason for the matter is:

If it causes others

namely, the remainder of the meal-offering

to become piggul, is it not all the more so

that its piggul should depart from it?

And we raise an objection:

What is he saying,

Ulla!? He has stated here a reason that contradicts his words. For he came to explain why its piggul departed from it, and he gave as the reason that the handful comes to become piggul: If it causes others to become piggul, all the more so should its own piggul depart from it!?

And we answer:

This is what

Ulla

said:

If you were to say that because of its disqualification and its piggul it

is not accepted,

and its burning is not considered burning, then when one burns a handful with the intention of eating the remainder of the meal-offering tomorrow, how could the remainder become piggul? For piggul takes effect only once its matirin have been offered, namely, when the handful is 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 does it cause others to become piggul?

Rather, it is necessarily so that at the time of its burning its piggul departed from it. This is what Ulla said: If it is accepted to bring others to its piggul, is it not all the more so that it itself is accepted?

And we raise an objection:

What does he teach us

Ulla through this law that the piggul departed from the handful, and for which law do we need this matter?

If

he is coming to say

that one is not liable for it

for eating it

on account of piggul,

there is no novelty in this, since even if the handful did not go up upon the altar, one is not liable for eating it on account of piggul, for

we already learned

in our Mishna:

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

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

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

Rather,

let us say that this law of the departure of its piggul is useful with regard to the rule that if the handful that is piggul went up upon the altar, it does not again come down, in accordance with the law of disqualified altar-offerings,

that if they went up, they do not come down.

But this matter too was already

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 thought of piggul

outside its time,

or with a thought of disqualification

outside its place—

all these,

if they went up

upon the altar,

do not come down.

It is thus explained that something piggul which went up does not come down. What, then, does Ulla come to teach us?

But rather,

let us say that Ulla came to introduce a novelty through the law of the departure of its piggul:

that if they came down,

the disqualified items from the altar, they should return and

go up

because their disqualification departed from them.

This too was already learned

in the Mishna that this is not so, for it was stated in the Mishna: All these disqualified items mentioned,

just as when they went up they do not come down, so too if they came down

from the altar, they

do not go up again!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for Ulla’s law only in the case

where the fire took hold of them

on the sacrificial portions and the disqualified flesh. Ulla teaches us this matter with regard to a handful: through the fire taking hold of it, it becomes the food of the altar, and therefore, even though it came down, it should go up again. This is unlike the law of the Mishna, that if they came down they do not go up again, which refers to a case where the fire did not take hold of them.

And we raise an objection:

this too—

this law

Ulla already stated once.

For Ulla said

concerning the words of this Mishna:

They taught

that if they descended, they shall not go up,

but

in a case

where the fire did not take hold of them; but if the fire took hold of them, they shall go up.

And why did Ulla need to state this law a second time?

And we answer: Ulla’s novelty here is that this law was stated even with regard to the handful, for

one might say

that this law—that if the fire took hold of them, they shall return and go up—