Zevachim 44b — the Talmud in English

And have we not found that this matter is not dependent on that?

Behold, the log of oil that comes by itself,

in a case where he brought his guilt-offering today and its log after ten days,

according to everyone

since the log of oil was not sanctified in a vessel at the time when the blood of the guilt-offering was thrown, the blood of the guilt-offering does not permit it; rather,

its applications permit it,

and

even so, its applications

do not render it piggul,

and the law of piggul does not apply to it.

For it was taught in a beraita: One is liable on account of the log of oil of a leper for piggul,

if he rendered the guilt-offering piggul,

because

the

blood

of the guilt-offering

permits it

through its throwing

for

the giving

of the applications of the thumbs, the words of Rabbi Meir.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Meir:

But a person brings his guilt-offering now, and the log

may bring it

from now until ten days.

If so, why should the log become piggul through the guilt-offering?

He said to them: I too said only

that the log of oil becomes piggul through the guilt-offering

in

the log that

comes with the guilt-offering

on that same day.

And since we have seen that a log of oil that comes by itself has no law of piggul according to everyone, even though its applications permit it, the same law applies to Rabbi: even though he holds that the applications of the log of oil permit it, nevertheless they do not render it piggul, for only blood or a handful renders its remainder piggul, because the meal-offering was compared to the sacrifices.

And we answer:

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said: Actually

the beraita above is Rabbi Meir, who holds that one is liable for a log of oil on account of piggul,

and erase from here

and delete from the latter clause

libations,

and do not recite them here in the beraita, so that the latter clause, which is according to the Sages, will not be difficult for you.

Abaye said: Actually, do not erase

“libations” from the beraita, and this is the explanation of the beraita:

And the tanna

the tanna taught in the first clause

a log that comes with the guilt-offering

that even though he can bring it after ten days, the blood of the guilt-offering renders it piggul according to Rabbi Meir;

and

from this you learn that

the same law applies to libations that come with the sacrifice,

that the blood of the sacrifice renders them piggul even though he can bring them later.

And afterward the tanna

in the latter clause

libations that come by themselves,

similar to the incense, frankincense, and the meal-offering of priests listed in the beraita, which have no permitters; therefore, if he offered part of them with a thought of piggul, they do not become piggul through this,

and

from them you learn that

the same law applies to a log that comes by itself,

that it does not become piggul through its applications.

We learned in the Mishna:

The blood of the bird sin-offering permits its flesh to the priests.

And we ask:

From where are these words

that the bird sin-offering is eaten [since it is carrion, for it was not slaughtered but pinched]?

And we answer:

Levi taught:

Concerning the priestly gifts given to Aaron and his sons it is stated: “This shall be yours from the most holy things, from the fire, all their offerings, for every meal-offering of theirs and for every sin-offering of theirs and for every guilt-offering of theirs that they return to Me; it is most holy, for you and for your sons” [Numbers 18]. And we expounded this verse as follows:

“All their offerings” includes the log of oil of a leper

which is also eaten, for it is called an offering, as it is stated concerning it: “And he shall bring it as a guilt-offering, and the log of oil”; thus the log is included in the general expression “shall bring,” that is, an offering.

And we needed to include the log of oil, and it was not sufficient that it is called an offering, because

it might enter your mind to say: “From the fire,” the Merciful One wrote

concerning things that are eaten, implying specifically what remains from the fires;

but this

log of oil

is not what remains from the fire,

for it did not rise at all upon the fires;

it teaches us

that even so it is given for eating to the priests.

“For every meal-offering of theirs” includes the meal-offering

of the

omer and the meal-offering of jealousy

of a woman suspected of adultery. And we needed this inclusion for them, because

it might enter your mind to say:

Since it is stated in the section of the inauguration offerings

“and they shall eat them through which atonement was made for them,”

then only something that has atonement in it may be eaten,

and

if

the meal-offering of the omer comes to permit

the new grain in the provinces,

and the meal-offering of jealousy comes to clarify the sin,

and they do not come for atonement,

it teaches us

that they too are eaten.

“And for every sin-offering of theirs” includes the bird sin-offering; it might enter your mind to say

that it should not be eaten, since it was not slaughtered but pinched,

carrion

it is

and it is forbidden to eat; therefore we learned through this that it is eaten by the priests, and from here we learn the law of the Mishna, that the bird sin-offering is eaten.

“And for every guilt-offering of theirs” includes the nazirite’s guilt-offering —

for if the nazirite became impure through a corpse during the days of his naziriteship, he must bring this guilt-offering when he becomes purified from his impurity, and it enables him to begin counting a period of pure naziriteship —

and the leper’s guilt-offering,

which are eaten. And we needed this inclusion because

it might enter your mind to say

that these did not come for atonement, but

they come to enable,

for the nazirite’s guilt-offering enables him to begin pure naziriteship, and the leper’s guilt-offering comes to enable him to eat sacred things;

it teaches us

that they too are eaten.

And we ask:

The leper’s guilt-offering is explicitly written concerning it

that it is eaten, for the Torah says concerning it: “For like the sin-offering, the guilt-offering is the priest’s.” Why, then, did we need to include it through the exposition of “for every guilt-offering of theirs”? Indeed, the fundamental law of the guilt-offering was needed here in the section concerning all twenty-four priestly gifts that the verse arranged here [because of Korah’s dispute, as explained by Rashi below], but nevertheless the word “and for every,” which comes to include, is superfluous?!

And we answer: Indeed, no inclusion is needed for the leper’s offering;

rather,

the exposition of “for every guilt-offering of theirs” comes

to include the nazirite’s guilt-offering

which is eaten

like the leper’s guilt-offering.

And the Gemara continues to bring the remainder of the beraita:

“That they return” — this is the robbery of a convert,

one who robbed his fellow, swore falsely to him, and afterward confessed: he pays the principal and the fifth to the owner. If the person robbed was a convert who has no heirs, he gives them to a priest. This is what is stated concerning it in the section of Naso: “But if the man has no redeemer to restore the guilt to him, the guilt that is restored to the Lord shall be the priest’s, besides the ram of atonement with which he shall make atonement for him.” And we expounded this: “The guilt” — this is the principal; “that is restored” — this is the fifth. If he was a convert who has no redeemer, he gives them to a priest. One cannot object here: Since this law was already stated in the section of Naso, why did the verse need to repeat it here? For all the sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, and other things mentioned in this section were likewise written each in its own place, and here the verse arranged them for Aaron because of Korah’s dispute, in which he challenged him concerning the priesthood.

“It shall be yours

and for your sons”

— it shall be yours:

the robbery of a convert, like ordinary non-sacred property,

even to betroth a woman with it,

for it has no sanctity at all and is the property of the owner. And what the verse says afterward, “In the most holy place you shall eat it,” refers to the other sacred things mentioned in the section, but the robbery of a convert is ordinary non-sacred property.

In our Mishna, the Sages and Rabbi Shimon disputed whether the law of piggul applies to the sacrificial portions of bulls and goats that are burned.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: If he rendered piggul something performed outside,

that is, the service during which he formed the thought, and the eating concerning which he formed the thought, were acts performed outside, he has

rendered it piggul;

but if he

rendered piggul something performed inside,

where the service and the eating were acts of the Sanctuary, he has

not rendered it piggul.

How so?

1.

He was standing outside and said: I am slaughtering

with the intention

of sprinkling its blood

on the inner altar or on the curtain

tomorrow;

this is

not piggul,

since

it is a thought outside concerning something performed inside

and it does not render it piggul.

2.

He was standing inside

the Sanctuary

and said: I am sprinkling

on the curtain or on the inner altar

with the intention

[of burning the sacrificial portions and]

of pouring the remainder

of the blood

tomorrow

on the outer altar;

he has not rendered it piggul,

since

it is a thought inside concerning something performed outside

and it does not render it piggul.

3. But

he was standing outside

and said: I am slaughtering

with the intention

of pouring the remainder tomorrow or burning the sacrificial portions tomorrow,

which are altar-eatings of the outer altar;

he has rendered it piggul,

since

it is a thought outside concerning something performed outside

.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the verse

that teaches us this matter? Concerning the bull of the anointed priest it is stated in the verse:

“As the sacrificial portions are lifted from the bull of the peace-offering,

and the priest shall burn them on the altar of the burnt-offering” [Leviticus 4].

And what have we learned

for the bull of the anointed priest concerning the burning of its sacrificial portions, which is not stated concerning it, that we need to learn it

from the bull of the peace-offering from now on?

After all, even concerning the bull of the anointed priest its sacrificial portions are specified: the fat, the kidneys, and the lobe of the liver?!

Rather, the verse compares

the

bull of the anointed priest to the bull of the peace-offering

concerning the law of piggul stated with peace-offerings, from which this law is learned concerning all sacred offerings, to teach you:

Just as the bull of the peace-offering

does not become piggul

until its acts are

the service during which he formed the thought

and its thoughts

the thought concerning its eating

on the outer altar,

that is, slaughtering, or carrying the blood, or throwing it, with the intention of eating the flesh, or pouring the remainder of the blood, or burning its sacrificial portions outside its time,

so too the bull of the anointed priest

does not become piggul

until its thoughts and its acts are on the outer altar.

Rav Nahman said that Rabba bar Avuha said that Rav said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Elazar, who said in the name of Rabbi Yose

that the services and the thoughts must concern things performed outside.