Zevachim 44a — the Talmud in English

And this is what he said:

“If the severe ones had not been stated,”

that is, corpse impurity,

“I would have said,”

with regard to the lenient ones, that is, sheretz impurity, he transgresses a negative commandment, and

“with regard to the severe ones,”

corpse impurity,

“with death.”

This matter is not possible, for if corpse impurity had not been written,

“would it not come from sheretz impurity, and”

if so,

“it is sufficient for that which comes from the derivation to be like the subject of the derivation.”

And just as sheretz impurity entails a negative commandment, so too corpse impurity entails only a negative commandment!?

And we answer:

Ze'iri said: “The lenient ones”

that are taught in the beraita are

sheretz impurity.

“The severe ones”—corpse impurity!

And this is what he is saying:

the tan­ na­ y of the beraita:

“If”

there

had been stated sheretz impurity

alone,

and tithe had been stated,

the one who eats it in sheretz impurity transgressing a negative commandment,

and teruma,

the one who eats it being liable to death,

“and corpse impurity had not been stated, I would have said: ‘The lenient ones,’”

one impure with sheretz impurity—

“with regard to the lenient ones,”

the eating of tithe, he transgresses

“a negative commandment. And with regard to the severe ones,”

the eating of teruma,

“with death.”

And I would have continued and said:

“And from the lenient ones to the severe ones,”

that is, one impure with sheretz who ate teruma,

“with death. The severe ones also with regard to the lenient ones,”

that is, one impure with a corpse who ate tithe,

“with death,”

for just as for a severe eating in a lenient impurity one is liable to death, so too for a lenient eating in a severe impurity.

Therefore the severe ones were stated,

corpse impurity, to tell you that one impure with a corpse who eats tithe is not liable to death, but transgresses a negative commandment.

We learned in the Mishna:

Anyone that has permitting agents, whether for a person or for the altar, one is liable for it on account of pigul.

The Sages taught:

We learned in the Torat Kohanim: From where do we have to include under the law of pigul every sacrifice that has permitting agents, whether for a person or for the altar? Perhaps

“or does it not bring”

to pigul

“except”

a sacrifice that is

“like peace-offerings”?

Since a generalization, specification, and generalization were stated here [as will be explained below], we should say:

“Just as peace-offerings are distinctive” in that they

by the fact that they

“are eaten for two days and one night,”

and the law of pigul was written with regard to them,

so too everything eaten for two days and one night

was included under this law. If so, the offering

“eaten for one day and one night—from where”

that it too was included under the law of pigul?

The verse says

in the verse concerning pigul, “And if he shall eat it at all,”

“of the flesh”

of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings [Leviticus 7], and concerning this it is stated afterward, “and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity.” And the word “flesh” is an inclusion, to say:

“Everything”

whose

“whose remainder is eaten”

has the law of pigul.

And we still knew only these, but

“the burnt-offering, whose remainder is not eaten—from where”

that it too was included under the law of pigul?

The verse says:

“of the flesh

of the sacrifice

of his peace-offerings.” And the word “sacrifice” comes to include even the burnt-offering.

And

“from where to include”

even

the birds

“and the meal-offerings?”

And after we include them, we shall continue with the inclusion

“until I include”

even

the log of oil of the leper,

which becomes pigul through a pigul thought at the time of the blood-services of the leper’s guilt-offering?

The verse says

with regard to impurity, “And they shall keep themselves separate from the sacred things of the Children of Israel, and they shall not profane My holy Name

which they consecrate to Me” [Leviticus 22]. And all sacred things were included in this.

All sacred offerings are included in this.

And from now we have learned through a double gzera shava:

a.

And there comes

the disqualification of

notar

in all sacred things through the gzera shava of

“profane, profane” from impurity.

With regard to notar it is stated, “For he has profaned the sacred thing of the Lord,” and with regard to impurity it is stated in the verse brought above, “And they shall keep themselves separate from the sacred things of the Children of Israel, and they shall not profane My holy Name.” Just as with impurity all sacred things were included, so too the disqualification of notar was stated with regard to all of them.

b.

And

after we have learned that the law of notar applies to all sacred things,

there comes

the law of

pigul

in all sacred things through the gzera shava of

“iniquity, iniquity” from notar,

for with regard to notar it is stated, “He shall bear his iniquity,” and with regard to pigul it is stated, “He shall bear his iniquity.”

And since its ultimate purpose is to include everything

with regard to the law of pigul, as explained, if so,

“why is ‘peace-offerings’ stated from now on”

[in order to expound it as a generalization, specification, and generalization that includes only something resembling the specification], since even something not resembling peace-offerings was included for this?

To tell you: just as peace-offerings are distinctive in that they have permitting agents, whether for a person or for the altar,

and one is liable for them on account of pigul,

so too everything

that

that has permitting agents, whether for a person or for the altar, one is liable for it on account of pigul.

Therefore, for the burnt-offering and the sacrificial portions of the other sacred offerings, we learned pigul for them from the sacrificial portions of peace-offerings, since they have permitting agents only for the altar; and the flesh of all the sacred offerings that are eaten, we learned from the flesh of peace-offerings, which has permitting agents only for a person, and one is liable for it on account of pigul; but other things that have no permitting agents do not have pigul!

We learned in the Mishna:

The burnt-offering—its blood permits its flesh for the altar and its hide for the priests; the bird burnt-offering—its blood permits its flesh for the altar; the bird sin-offering—its blood permits its flesh for the priests; the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned—their blood permits their sacrificial portions [unclear: “ליק רב” in the source].

And so too we learned in the Torat Kohanim, and there the beraita continued:

“And I exclude”

from the law of pigul

“the handful, the frankincense, the incense, the meal-offering of priests, the meal-offering of the anointed priest, the libation meal-offering, and the blood,”

for all these are not permitted through others.

Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as peace-offerings are distinctive, in that there is”

in them the law of blood-throwing

“upon”

the

“outer altar, and one is liable for it”

on account of pigul,

“so too all”

the sacrifices

“for which there is”

blood-throwing

“upon the outer altar, one is liable for it on account of pigul. The bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned are excluded, since”

their blood is not placed

“upon the outer altar, like peace-offerings,”

but upon the inner altar; therefore,

“one is not liable for it on account of pigul!”

The Master said

above: Perhaps it brings one to pigul only a thing that is

“like peace-offerings.”

And the Gemara explains:

“What is it?”

The offering that resembles peace-offerings is

the firstborn,

whose law is

“that it is eaten for two days and one night”

like peace-offerings.

And we raise an objection:

“By what does it come?”

to include the firstborn under the law of pigul?

“If”

it comes

“by what we find”

from peace-offerings,

“there is room to refute”

that the firstborn does not resemble peace-offerings, for

“what is distinctive about peace-offerings is that they require placing of hands”

on the offering,

“and libations”

that come with it,

“and waving of the breast and thigh”

by the owners and the priest; and because of this the law of pigul was also stated with regard to it, whereas this is not so with the firstborn, which does not require all these laws!?

Rather,

we should have learned the firstborn

“from”

what was stated concerning peace-offerings: “And

“if he shall eat it at all”

of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings,” and we expounded this verse as a generalization, specification, and generalization: “eat” is a generalization, “of the flesh of his peace-offerings” is a specification, “he shall eat” returns and generalizes; just as the specification is something eaten for two days and one night, so too everything eaten for this period was included under the law of pigul including the firstborn.

And we raise an objection:

“These two generalizations are adjacent to one another,”

and the specification was not written in the middle, but at the end; how can you expound a generalization, specification, and generalization in such a manner!?

And we answer:

Rava said:

The explanation of this is

“as they say in the West,”

in the Land of Israel:

“Every place where you find two generalizations adjacent to one another,”

and the specification is written at the end, as in the verse before us,

“place the specification between them, and expound them as a generalization and specification”

and generalization. Here too, in the matter under discussion, we should have inserted the words “the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings,” which are the specification, between “eat” and “he shall eat,” and expounded a generalization, specification, and generalization; and we would thereby have learned the law of pigul only for the firstborn. Therefore we needed to include the other sacred offerings through other teachings, as explained.

We learned in a beraita:

“Until I include the log of oil of the leper.”

And the Gemara explains:

“This”

beraita, which includes the log of oil of the leper under the law of pigul,

“is that of Rabbi Meir!”

For it was taught: “The log of oil of the leper”

—in a case where it came with the guilt-offering, and he conceived a pigul thought during the services of the guilt-offering—

“one is liable for it on account of pigul,”

and even though, if the leper wishes, he may bring the log from then until ten days later, nevertheless, since he brought it with the guilt-offering, the blood of the guilt-offering is what permits it to be placed on the thumbs of the leper and to eat its remainder, and therefore it becomes pigul through it,

“the words of Rabbi Meir.”

And we raise an objection:

“Say the latter clause”

of this beraita:

“And I exclude”

from liability for pigul

“the libation meal-offering and the blood.”

And this is necessarily

“we come to the Rabbis,”

for they are the ones who hold that one is not liable for the libation meal-offering on account of pigul, whereas Rabbi Meir disagrees with them in this matter.

For it was taught: “For the libations of an animal one is liable on their account for pigul”

if he conceived a pigul thought during the services of the animal,

“because the blood of the sacrifice permits them”

for the libations

“to be offered; the words of Rabbi Meir.”

“They said to him: But does a person not bring his sacrifices today, and the libations”

he can bring

“from then until ten days later,”

and necessarily the sacrifice does not permit the libations; if so, why should they become pigul through it?

“He said to them,”

Rabbi Meir:

“I too said”

that the libations should become pigul

“only with”

libations that

“come with the sacrifice”

on that same day; but if he brought them afterward, the sacrifice does not make them pigul! It now follows that the first clause, which explains that the log of oil becomes pigul through the guilt-offering, follows the view of Rabbi Meir, whereas the latter clause, which says that the libations do not become pigul because of the sacrifice even when they came with it, follows the view of the Rabbis!?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said:

In truth, this beraita follows the view of the Rabbis, who say that since it is possible to bring the libations later, even if he brought them with the sacrifice, it does not make them pigul. And with regard to the log of oil as well, the sacrifice does not make it pigul. And that which was stated in the beraita, that there is a law of pigul with regard to the leper’s log of oil, does not mean that it can become pigul through the sacrifice, but rather,

“whose view is it? It is Rabbi’s, who says: ‘The log of oil of the leper—its applications’”

from which seven sprinklings are made inside the Sanctuary,

“permit it”

for its remainder to be eaten.

“And”

since we have heard that Rabbi holds

“that its applications permit it,”

we should say for this reason that

“its applications make it pigul”

if he sprinkled them with the thought of eating the remainder of the oil outside its permitted time, for its eating time is limited to one day and one night. And the beraita too deals with a case in which he conceived a pigul thought during the sprinkling of the oil.

And where did we hear that Rabbi said that the applications of the log permit it for eating?

For it was taught: “The log of oil of the leper—one commits misuse with it,”

for it has not yet been permitted to the priests,

“until he throws”

the

“blood”

of the guilt-offering, at which point the log is permitted to the priests, and anything that has a time when it becomes permitted to the priests is not subject to the law of misuse.

“The blood was thrown: one may not derive benefit”

from the log of oil, by rabbinic law, until he performs its applications,

“and one does not commit misuse”

because it has already been permitted to the priests.

Rabbi says:

Even if the blood was thrown,

“one commits misuse”

with the log of oil

“until he performs its applications,”

that is, its seven sprinklings. And after he has performed these applications, one does not commit misuse with it, even if he has still not placed from it the application on the thumbs of the leper, since this application is not a need of the Most High.

“And they agree,”

Rabbi and the Rabbis,

, that

even though he has already performed from it the seven applications, which are applications for the Most High, nevertheless

“it is forbidden”

the log of oil

“for eating”

by rabbinic law

“until he performs”

from it

“the seven applications”

of sprinkling

“and the application on the thumbs”

of the leper.

They said it

the Rabbis, concerning Rabbi Yosef’s answer,

“before Rabbi Yirmeya.”

Rabbi Yirmeya said,

with astonishment:

“Would a great man like Rav Yosef say such a thing?”

Since its applications permit it, its applications make it pigul!?