Zevachim 44
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Zevachim 44
אִם לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ חֲמוּרוֹת, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר עַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת בְּמִיתָה?! הָא מִטּוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ קָאָתְיָא, וְדַיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן!
If the stringent case of impurity imparted by a corpse were not stated, but only the lenient case of the impurity of a creeping animal, would I say that the punishment in the stringent case is that of death at the hand of Heaven? Rather, the halakha in the case of impurity imparted by a corpse would be derived from the halakha in the case of the impurity of a creeping animal by means of an a fortiori inference, and it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, in this case that one is liable to be flogged for the violation of a prohibition, and no more.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: קַלּוֹת – טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ, חֲמוּרוֹת – טוּמְאַת מֵת. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ וְנֶאֱמַר מַעֲשֵׂר וּתְרוּמָה, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה טוּמְאַת מֵת – הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: [קַלּוֹת] עַל הַקַּלּוֹת בְּלָאו, וְעַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת בְּמִיתָה;
Ze’eiri says: Indeed, the lenient case is referring to the impurity of a creeping animal, and the stringent case is referring to impurity imparted by a corpse. And this is what the baraita is saying: If the impurity of a creeping animal was stated, and it was stated that one who eats second tithe while impure with such impurity has violated a prohibition and one who partakes of teruma in that state is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the impurity imparted by a corpse was not stated in this context, I would say as follows: The lenient level of impurity, that of a creeping animal, with regard to food with lenient halakhot, second tithe, involves the violation of a prohibition, and with regard to food with stringent halakhot, teruma, it involves liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven.
וּמִדְּקַלּוֹת עַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת בְּמִיתָה – חֲמוּרוֹת נָמֵי עַל הַקַּלּוֹת בְּמִיתָה; לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרוּ חֲמוּרוֹת.
Ze’eiri continues his explanation of the baraita: And from the fact that the lenient level of impurity, that of a creeping animal, with regard to food with stringent halakhot, teruma, involves liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, it may be inferred that also in the analogous case of the stringent level of impurity, imparted by a corpse, with regard to food with lenient halakhot, there is liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven. Therefore, the stringent level of impurity, imparted by a corpse, was stated with regard to second tithe, which has lenient halakhot, to teach that even if one contracted impurity from a corpse, he has violated only a prohibition for eating second tithe, and is not liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven.
כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, בֵּין לְאָדָם בֵּין לְמִזְבֵּחַ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. The Gemara cites a verse and a related baraita. The verse states: “And if any be at all eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who sacrifices it; it shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18). The baraita first demonstrates that the halakha of piggul applies not only to a peace offering, with regard to which it is stated in the Torah, but to all offerings.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹ אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים מְיוּחָדִים – נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, אַף כֹּל נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד;
The Sages taught in a baraita: Or perhaps the halakha of piggul extends only to an offering that is similar to peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they are eaten for two days and one night, so too, the halakha of piggul applies to any offering that is eaten for two days and one night.
נֶאֱכָל לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִבְּשַׂר״ – כֹּל (שֶׁשִּׁירִין) [שֶׁשְּׁיָרָיו] נֶאֱכָלִין. עוֹלָה שֶׁאֵין שְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֶבַח״.
But as for an offering that is eaten only for one day, i.e., the day the offering is sacrificed, and the following night, e.g., a sin offering, guilt offering, and firstborn offering, from where is it derived that the halakha of piggul applies to this offering as well? The verse states: “Of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering,” which teaches that the status of piggul can apply to any offering whose remainder of meat is eaten after its sacrificial portions have been offered on the altar. The baraita asks: With regard to a burnt offering, whose remainder of meat is not eaten, as it is burned in its entirety on the altar, from where is this halakha derived? The verse states: “Sacrifice,” which includes any offering that is slaughtered.
מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הָעוֹפוֹת וְהַמְּנָחוֹת, עַד שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּישִׁים לִי״.
The baraita asks: From where is it derived to include bird offerings, e.g., doves or pigeons, which are not slaughtered but whose napes of their necks are pinched, and meal offerings, until I include even the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper? The verse states with regard to the consumption of consecrated food in a state of ritual purity: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me, and that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2).
וְאָתֵי נוֹתָר ״חִילּוּל״–״חִילּוּל״ מִטּוּמְאָה, וְאָתֵי פִּיגּוּל ״עָוֹן״–״עָוֹן״ מִנּוֹתָר.
The baraita clarifies this derivation: The halakha that the prohibition of notar applies to all these offerings is derived through a verbal analogy of profanation in the context of notar: “And if anything remains until the third day, it shall be burned in fire…and anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord” (Leviticus 19:6–8), and profanation stated in the verse discussing ritual impurity: “And that they do not profane My holy name.” And the halakha that piggul applies to all these offerings is subsequently derived through a verbal analogy of “iniquity” in the context of piggul and “iniquity” stated in the verse discussing notar. With regard to piggul, the verse states: “It shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to notar, it is stated in the aforementioned verse: “And anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity.”
וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר שְׁלָמִים מֵעַתָּה? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה שְׁלָמִים מְיוּחָדִים – שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַתִּירִין בֵּין לָאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין בֵּין לָאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל.
The baraita asks: And since the verse eventually includes all items, even meal offerings and the log of oil of a leper, now one can ask: Why does the verse state piggul specifically with regard to peace offerings? The baraita answers: This serves to tell you that the offering must be similar to peace offerings in the following way: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they have permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, so too, with regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for a person or for the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.
הָעוֹלָה – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְעוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. עוֹלַת הָעוֹף – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים – דָּמָם מַתִּיר אֶת אֵימוּרֵיהֶן לִיקְרַב.
The baraita specifies: With regard to the burnt offering, its blood renders its flesh permitted to be burned on the altar and its hide to be used by the priests. With regard to the bird burnt offering, its blood renders its flesh and its skin permitted to be burned on the altar. With regard to the bird sin offering, its blood renders its flesh permitted for consumption by the priests. With regard to bulls that are burned, e.g., the bull sacrificed for an unwitting communal transgression, and goats that are burned, e.g., the goat sacrificed for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, their blood renders their sacrificial portions permitted to be sacrificed on the altar.
וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, וְהַדָּם.
And I exclude, via the analogy to peace offerings, the handful of a meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, and the blood. All these do not have an item that renders them permitted either for a person or for the altar.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מָה שְׁלָמִים מְיוּחָדִין – שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָן עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל. יָצְאוּ פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, הוֹאִיל שֶׁאֵין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן כִּשְׁלָמִים – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל.
The baraita concludes: Rabbi Shimon says that the fact that the verse specifies peace offerings as the standard case of piggul teaches: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they have a permitting factor that is sacrificed on the external altar, i.e., their blood, and one is liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, so too, with regard to any item that has a permitting factor that is sacrificed on the external altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. This serves to exclude bulls that are burned and goats that are burned: Since their blood is not presented on the external altar like peace offerings, one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.
אָמַר [מָר]: כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁלָמִים. מַאי נִיהוּ? בְּכוֹר, דְּנֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד. בְּמַאי אָתֵי? אִי בְּמָה מָצִינוּ – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ:
The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: Perhaps the halakha of piggul extends only to an offering that is similar to peace offerings: What is this offering that is similar to a peace offering but not included in the category of peace offerings? The Gemara answers: The reference is to a firstborn offering, which is eaten for two days and one night, as is a peace offering. The Gemara raises a difficulty: By what hermeneutical principle is the halakha of the firstborn offering derived? If it is by the hermeneutical principle of: What do we find with regard to, a principle of inductive reasoning involving a comparison between cases that include similar details, i.e., since the peace offering and firstborn offering are similar with regard to the time designated for their eating, piggul status should apply to each, this can be refuted.
מָה לִשְׁלָמִים – שֶׁהֵן טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים, וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק!
The Gemara clarifies the refutation: What is notable about peace offerings? They are notable in that they require placing hands on the head of the offering, libations, and waving of the breast and thigh. None of these apply in the case of a firstborn offering.
אֶלָּא מֵ״אִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל״.
Rather, the halakha that piggul status applies to a firstborn offering is derived through the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, from the following verse: “And if any be at all eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings on the third day, it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 7:18). The terms: “And if any” and “be at all eaten” are generalizations, while the words: “The flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering” constitute a detail. According to the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, in such a case one includes any item that is similar to the detail, and therefore one includes the firstborn offering.
הָנֵי תְּרֵי כְּלָלֵי דִּסְמִיכִי אַהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ! אָמַר רָבָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי כְּלָלוֹת הַסְּמוּכִים זֶה לָזֶה, הַטֵּל פְּרָט בֵּינֵיהֶם וְדוּנֵם בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: These two phrases are generalizations that are adjacent to one another, which means that this is not an instance of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, as they are not in that order. Rava said: The hermeneutical principle applies even in this case, as they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: In every place that you find two generalizations that are adjacent to one another, cast the detail that is written afterward between them, and interpret them in the manner of a generalization and a detail and a generalization. Consequently, this verse is considered to state a generalization and a detail and a generalization.
עַד שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע. הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי מִנְחַת נְסָכִים וְהַדָּם – אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן!
§ The baraita teaches: Until I include even the log of oil of a leper. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? The Gemara answers that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of the leper, one is liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, if the guilt offering that this oil accompanied became piggul; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say the latter clause: And I exclude the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, and the blood, as they do not have a permitting factor. Here we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, who dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.
דְּתַנְיָא: נִסְכֵי בְהֵמָה – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּם הַזֶּבַח מַתִּירָן לִיקָרֵב. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא אָדָם מֵבִיא אֶת זְבָחָיו הַיּוֹם, וּנְסָכִין מִיכָּן עַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים! אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי, אֶלָּא בְּבָאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח.
The Gemara elaborates: As it is taught in another baraita: With regard to the libations of an animal offering, one is liable for consuming them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the offering renders them permitted to be offered on the altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to him: But a person may bring his offerings today and the accompanying libations from now until even ten days later. Evidently, then, the blood of the offering does not render the libations permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: I too spoke only about libations that come to be sacrificed together with the offering. If so, the baraita under discussion represents two conflicting opinions.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – מַתְּנוֹתָיו שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ; וּמִדְּמַתְּנוֹתָיו שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ – מַתְּנוֹתָיו מְפַגְּלִי לֵיהּ.
Rav Yosef said: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling, that even the log of oil of a leper is included in the prohibition of piggul? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who agrees with the Rabbis that the libations of an animal offering are not permitted by the blood of the offering. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says with regard to the log of oil of a leper that it is not the blood of the guilt offering that renders it permitted; rather, the placements of its oil “before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:16) render the remainder of the oil permitted to be eaten by the priests. And from the fact that the placements of its oil render the oil permitted, by the same token the placements of its oil render it piggul, i.e., if the oil was placed with the intent that the priests should consume its remainder on the following day, one who consumes the oil is liable for consuming piggul.
דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, עַד שֶׁיִּזְרוֹק הַדָּם. נִזְרַק הַדָּם – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין.
The Gemara cites the source for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of a leper, one who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property if he derives benefit from it at any point after it has been consecrated in a service vessel, until the blood of the leper’s guilt offering is sprinkled. At this stage the oil is permitted to the priests, and therefore the prohibition against misusing property consecrated to the Temple no longer applies to it. Once the blood has been sprinkled, one may not derive benefit from the oil ab initio, by rabbinic law, as it must still be placed on the leper’s right ear, thumb, and big toe. But if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין, עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מַתְּנוֹתָיו. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מַתַּן שֶׁבַע וּמַתַּן בְּהוֹנוֹת.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One who derives benefit from the oil is liable for misusing consecrated property until the priest places its own placements, i.e., until the oil is sprinkled seven times toward the Sanctuary, as these sprinklings render the remainder of the oil permitted to the priests. And the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agree that consumption of the log of oil is prohibited until the priest places the seven placements, i.e., sprinklings, of oil toward the Sanctuary, and performs the placing of the oil on the leper’s thumb and big toe.
אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, אָמַר: גַּבְרָא רַבָּא כְּרַב יוֹסֵף, לֵימָא כִּי הָא מִילְּתָא?!
They said this statement before Rabbi Yirmeya in Eretz Yisrael, whereupon he said: Would a great man such as Rav Yosef say such a matter, that the sprinkling of the oil renders the rest of the oil piggul?
הֲרֵי לוֹג [הַבָּא] בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ – דִּלְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מַתְּנוֹתָיו שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ, וְלָא מְפַגְּלִין לֵיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּם מַתִּירוֹ לַבְּהוֹנוֹת. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
But there is the case of the log of oil that is brought by itself, i.e., where the leper brings it after he has sacrificed his offerings. There everyone agrees that its placements render the remainder of the oil permitted to the priests, and yet they do not render the oil piggul, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of a leper, one is liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the offering renders it permitted to be placed on the thumb and big toe of the leper. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: וַהֲלֹא אָדָם מֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ עַכְשָׁיו, וְלוֹג מִיכָּן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים! אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי, אֶלָּא בְּבָא עִם הָאָשָׁם.
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: But a person may bring his guilt offering today and the accompanying log of oil from now until even ten days later. Rabbi Meir said to them: I too spoke only about a log of oil that comes with the guilt offering. This indicates that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is the blood of the offering that renders the oil piggul.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וּסְמִי מִיכָּן נְסָכִים. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם לָא תִּסְמֵי; וְתָנָא לוֹג הַבָּא עִם הָאָשָׁם – וְהוּא הַדִּין לִנְסָכִים הַבָּאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח, וַהֲדַר תָּנָא נְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן – וְהוּא הַדִּין לְלוֹג הַבָּא לִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says: Actually, the aforementioned baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and omit the case of the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings from the list of items that are not subject to the halakha of piggul. Abaye says: Actually, do not omit this item from the list, and the baraita can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir as follows: The tanna first taught the halakha with regard to the log of oil that comes with the leper’s guilt offering, and the same is true of libations that come with an animal offering, as according to Rabbi Meir piggul status applies to both of these. And then the tanna taught that piggul does not apply to libations that come by themselves, and the same is true of a log of oil that comes by itself.
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי:
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the bird burnt offering, its blood renders its meat and its skin permitted to be eaten by the priests. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that the meat of a bird burnt offering is eaten by the priests, derived? The Gemara cites a baraita that Levi teaches, with regard to a verse that discusses the gifts that are to be presented to the priests: “This shall be yours of the most sacred items, from the fire: Every offering of theirs, every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every guilt offering of theirs, which they shall render to Me, shall be most sacred for you and for your sons” (Numbers 18:9).
״כׇּל קׇרְבָּנָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״מִן הָאֵשׁ״ כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו מוֹתָר מִן הָאֵשׁ הוּא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The baraita clarifies what is included by the term “every” in each of these clauses. The verse states: “Every offering of theirs,” which serves to include the log of oil of a leper; it too is given to the priests. The Gemara explains why it is necessary to derive from the verse that the oil is a gift to the priesthood: It might enter your mind to say that the oil should not be included, as the Merciful One writes in this same verse: “From the fire,” and this log of oil, notwithstanding its status as an offering, is not reserved from the fire. Only an item concerning which part of it is brought to the altar can be said to be reserved from the fire, and none of the oil is brought to the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: “Every offering of theirs,” that the oil goes to the priests.
״לְכׇל מִנְחָתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת עוֹמֶר וּמִנְחַת הַקְּנָאוֹת. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״ – וּמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לְהַתִּיר אָתְיָא, וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת לְבָרֵר עָוֹן קָאָתְיָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The phrase: “Every meal offering of theirs,” serves to include the omer meal offering, brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and the meal offering of jealousy, brought by a sota. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that as the verse states with regard to the consumption of sacrificial food by the priests: “And they shall eat those items with which atonement is achieved” (Exodus 29:33), only those foods that facilitate atonement are given to the priests. And this would exclude the omer meal offering and the meal offering of jealousy, as the omer meal offering comes to permit the consumption of the new crop, and the meal offering of jealousy comes to clarify the transgression of the sota, as part of the ordeal undergone by the woman. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: “Every meal offering of theirs,” that even these meal offerings are eaten by the priests.
״וּלְכׇל חַטָּאתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת חַטַּאת הָעוֹף. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: נְבֵילָה הִיא.
The phrase: “And every sin offering of theirs,” serves to include the bird sin offering; its meat too is given to the priests. The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that this meat should not be eaten at all, as it is an unslaughtered animal carcass, since the bird is killed by pinching its nape (see Leviticus 5:8) rather than by slaughtering, which is the manner of ritual slaughter of non-sacred birds. Therefore, the phrase: “And every sin offering of theirs,” teaches that the bird sin offering is eaten by the priests.
״לְכׇל אֲשָׁמָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לְהַכְשִׁיר קָאָתוּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The phrase: “Every guilt offering of theirs,” serves to include the guilt offering of a nazirite who contracted ritual impurity, and the guilt offering of a leper. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that these should not be given to the priests to eat, as they come to qualify these individuals, rather than to atone. The guilt offering of a nazirite renders him fit to restart his term of naziriteship, and the guilt offering of a leper qualifies him to eat sacrificial food, whereas the verse states: “And they shall eat those items with which atonement is achieved” (Exodus 29:33). Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: “Every guilt offering of theirs,” that these offerings as well are eaten by the priests.
אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר כַּאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.
The Gemara challenges: It is explicitly written with regard to the guilt offering of a leper that it is consumed by the priests: “For as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 14:13). Why, then, is this derivation necessary? Rather, the baraita means to say that the phrase: “Every guilt offering of theirs,” serves to include the guilt offering of a nazirite, teaching that it is like the guilt offering of a leper, in that both are eaten by the priests.
״אֲשֶׁר יָשִׁיבוּ״ – זֶה גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר. ״לְךָ הוּא״ – שֶׁלְּךָ יִהְיֶה, אֲפִילּוּ לְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה.
The baraita continues: With regard to the phrase “which they shall render to Me,” this is referring to an item stolen from a convert. One who robs a convert who then dies with no heirs must give the stolen item and an additional one-fifth to the priests. Finally, the term “for you” teaches that it shall be yours, even to betroth a woman with it, i.e., these gifts are considered the priest’s property in all regards.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: פִּיגֵּל בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ – פִּיגֵּל. בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים – לֹא פִּיגֵּל.
§ According to the first tanna of the mishna, the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, the blood of which is presented on the inner altar, are subject to piggul, whereas Rabbi Shimon rules that they are not subject to piggul. It is taught in a baraita that there is a third opinion concerning the matter: Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If in his service of the bulls that are burned or the goats that are burned the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul with regard to a matter that is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, he has rendered the offering piggul. If his intention was with regard to a matter that is performed inside the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, he has not rendered the offering piggul.
כֵּיצַד? הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹחֵט לְהַזּוֹת מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר״ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל, שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה בַּחוּץ בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים לֹא פִּיגֵּל. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּפְנִים, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי מַזֶּה עַל מְנָת לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִים וְלִשְׁפּוֹךְ שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל, שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה בִּפְנִים בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ.
The baraita elaborates: How so? If he was standing outside when slaughtering the animal, and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood tomorrow inside the Sanctuary, he has not rendered the offering piggul. The reason is that in the case of an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed inside, one has not rendered the offering piggul. Likewise, if he was standing inside when sprinkling, and said: I hereby sprinkle the blood of the sin offering in order to burn its sacrificial portions on the external altar and to pour out its remainder on the base of the altar tomorrow, he has not rendered the offering piggul, as this is an intention inside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.
אֲבָל הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹחֵט לִשְׁפּוֹךְ שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״, אוֹ ״לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִים לְמָחָר״ – פִּיגֵּל, שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה בַּחוּץ בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ.
But if he was standing outside, and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of pouring out the remainder of its blood tomorrow, or to burn its sacrificial portions tomorrow, he has rendered the offering piggul, as this is an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַאי קְרָא? ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״ – וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים מֵעַתָּה?
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the verse from which this is derived? The verse states with regard to the sacrificial portions of a bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, which is one of the bulls that are burned: “As it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering” (Leviticus 4:10). But what, then, do we learn from the bull of a peace offering? Everything that is specified with regard to a peace offering is stated with regard to this bull as well.
אֶלָּא מַקִּישׁ פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ לְשׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים; מָה שׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים – עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מַעֲשָׂיו וּמַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, אַף פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ – עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו וּמַעֲשָׂיו עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.
Rather, the verse juxtaposes the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest with the bull of the peace offering: Just as the bull of the peace offering is not rendered piggul unless the priest’s actions and intentions relate to the service performed on the external altar, as that is where it is offered, so too, the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest is not rendered piggul unless the priest’s intentions and actions relate to the service performed on the external altar.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says his ruling in the name of Rabbi Yosei.
אָמַר רָבָא:
Rava said:
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
Jerusalem, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Zevachim 44
אִם לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ חֲמוּרוֹת, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר עַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת בְּמִיתָה?! הָא מִטּוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ קָאָתְיָא, וְדַיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן!
If the stringent case of impurity imparted by a corpse were not stated, but only the lenient case of the impurity of a creeping animal, would I say that the punishment in the stringent case is that of death at the hand of Heaven? Rather, the halakha in the case of impurity imparted by a corpse would be derived from the halakha in the case of the impurity of a creeping animal by means of an a fortiori inference, and it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, in this case that one is liable to be flogged for the violation of a prohibition, and no more.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: קַלּוֹת – טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ, חֲמוּרוֹת – טוּמְאַת מֵת. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ וְנֶאֱמַר מַעֲשֵׂר וּתְרוּמָה, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה טוּמְאַת מֵת – הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: [קַלּוֹת] עַל הַקַּלּוֹת בְּלָאו, וְעַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת בְּמִיתָה;
Ze’eiri says: Indeed, the lenient case is referring to the impurity of a creeping animal, and the stringent case is referring to impurity imparted by a corpse. And this is what the baraita is saying: If the impurity of a creeping animal was stated, and it was stated that one who eats second tithe while impure with such impurity has violated a prohibition and one who partakes of teruma in that state is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the impurity imparted by a corpse was not stated in this context, I would say as follows: The lenient level of impurity, that of a creeping animal, with regard to food with lenient halakhot, second tithe, involves the violation of a prohibition, and with regard to food with stringent halakhot, teruma, it involves liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven.
וּמִדְּקַלּוֹת עַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת בְּמִיתָה – חֲמוּרוֹת נָמֵי עַל הַקַּלּוֹת בְּמִיתָה; לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרוּ חֲמוּרוֹת.
Ze’eiri continues his explanation of the baraita: And from the fact that the lenient level of impurity, that of a creeping animal, with regard to food with stringent halakhot, teruma, involves liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, it may be inferred that also in the analogous case of the stringent level of impurity, imparted by a corpse, with regard to food with lenient halakhot, there is liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven. Therefore, the stringent level of impurity, imparted by a corpse, was stated with regard to second tithe, which has lenient halakhot, to teach that even if one contracted impurity from a corpse, he has violated only a prohibition for eating second tithe, and is not liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven.
כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, בֵּין לְאָדָם בֵּין לְמִזְבֵּחַ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. The Gemara cites a verse and a related baraita. The verse states: “And if any be at all eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who sacrifices it; it shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18). The baraita first demonstrates that the halakha of piggul applies not only to a peace offering, with regard to which it is stated in the Torah, but to all offerings.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹ אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים מְיוּחָדִים – נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, אַף כֹּל נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד;
The Sages taught in a baraita: Or perhaps the halakha of piggul extends only to an offering that is similar to peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they are eaten for two days and one night, so too, the halakha of piggul applies to any offering that is eaten for two days and one night.
נֶאֱכָל לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִבְּשַׂר״ – כֹּל (שֶׁשִּׁירִין) [שֶׁשְּׁיָרָיו] נֶאֱכָלִין. עוֹלָה שֶׁאֵין שְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֶבַח״.
But as for an offering that is eaten only for one day, i.e., the day the offering is sacrificed, and the following night, e.g., a sin offering, guilt offering, and firstborn offering, from where is it derived that the halakha of piggul applies to this offering as well? The verse states: “Of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering,” which teaches that the status of piggul can apply to any offering whose remainder of meat is eaten after its sacrificial portions have been offered on the altar. The baraita asks: With regard to a burnt offering, whose remainder of meat is not eaten, as it is burned in its entirety on the altar, from where is this halakha derived? The verse states: “Sacrifice,” which includes any offering that is slaughtered.
מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הָעוֹפוֹת וְהַמְּנָחוֹת, עַד שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּישִׁים לִי״.
The baraita asks: From where is it derived to include bird offerings, e.g., doves or pigeons, which are not slaughtered but whose napes of their necks are pinched, and meal offerings, until I include even the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper? The verse states with regard to the consumption of consecrated food in a state of ritual purity: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me, and that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2).
וְאָתֵי נוֹתָר ״חִילּוּל״–״חִילּוּל״ מִטּוּמְאָה, וְאָתֵי פִּיגּוּל ״עָוֹן״–״עָוֹן״ מִנּוֹתָר.
The baraita clarifies this derivation: The halakha that the prohibition of notar applies to all these offerings is derived through a verbal analogy of profanation in the context of notar: “And if anything remains until the third day, it shall be burned in fire…and anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord” (Leviticus 19:6–8), and profanation stated in the verse discussing ritual impurity: “And that they do not profane My holy name.” And the halakha that piggul applies to all these offerings is subsequently derived through a verbal analogy of “iniquity” in the context of piggul and “iniquity” stated in the verse discussing notar. With regard to piggul, the verse states: “It shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to notar, it is stated in the aforementioned verse: “And anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity.”
וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר שְׁלָמִים מֵעַתָּה? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה שְׁלָמִים מְיוּחָדִים – שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַתִּירִין בֵּין לָאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין בֵּין לָאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל.
The baraita asks: And since the verse eventually includes all items, even meal offerings and the log of oil of a leper, now one can ask: Why does the verse state piggul specifically with regard to peace offerings? The baraita answers: This serves to tell you that the offering must be similar to peace offerings in the following way: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they have permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, so too, with regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for a person or for the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.
הָעוֹלָה – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְעוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. עוֹלַת הָעוֹף – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים – דָּמָם מַתִּיר אֶת אֵימוּרֵיהֶן לִיקְרַב.
The baraita specifies: With regard to the burnt offering, its blood renders its flesh permitted to be burned on the altar and its hide to be used by the priests. With regard to the bird burnt offering, its blood renders its flesh and its skin permitted to be burned on the altar. With regard to the bird sin offering, its blood renders its flesh permitted for consumption by the priests. With regard to bulls that are burned, e.g., the bull sacrificed for an unwitting communal transgression, and goats that are burned, e.g., the goat sacrificed for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, their blood renders their sacrificial portions permitted to be sacrificed on the altar.
וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, וְהַדָּם.
And I exclude, via the analogy to peace offerings, the handful of a meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, and the blood. All these do not have an item that renders them permitted either for a person or for the altar.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מָה שְׁלָמִים מְיוּחָדִין – שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָן עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל. יָצְאוּ פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, הוֹאִיל שֶׁאֵין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן כִּשְׁלָמִים – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל.
The baraita concludes: Rabbi Shimon says that the fact that the verse specifies peace offerings as the standard case of piggul teaches: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they have a permitting factor that is sacrificed on the external altar, i.e., their blood, and one is liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, so too, with regard to any item that has a permitting factor that is sacrificed on the external altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. This serves to exclude bulls that are burned and goats that are burned: Since their blood is not presented on the external altar like peace offerings, one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.
אָמַר [מָר]: כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁלָמִים. מַאי נִיהוּ? בְּכוֹר, דְּנֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד. בְּמַאי אָתֵי? אִי בְּמָה מָצִינוּ – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ:
The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: Perhaps the halakha of piggul extends only to an offering that is similar to peace offerings: What is this offering that is similar to a peace offering but not included in the category of peace offerings? The Gemara answers: The reference is to a firstborn offering, which is eaten for two days and one night, as is a peace offering. The Gemara raises a difficulty: By what hermeneutical principle is the halakha of the firstborn offering derived? If it is by the hermeneutical principle of: What do we find with regard to, a principle of inductive reasoning involving a comparison between cases that include similar details, i.e., since the peace offering and firstborn offering are similar with regard to the time designated for their eating, piggul status should apply to each, this can be refuted.
מָה לִשְׁלָמִים – שֶׁהֵן טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים, וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק!
The Gemara clarifies the refutation: What is notable about peace offerings? They are notable in that they require placing hands on the head of the offering, libations, and waving of the breast and thigh. None of these apply in the case of a firstborn offering.
אֶלָּא מֵ״אִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל״.
Rather, the halakha that piggul status applies to a firstborn offering is derived through the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, from the following verse: “And if any be at all eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings on the third day, it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 7:18). The terms: “And if any” and “be at all eaten” are generalizations, while the words: “The flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering” constitute a detail. According to the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, in such a case one includes any item that is similar to the detail, and therefore one includes the firstborn offering.
הָנֵי תְּרֵי כְּלָלֵי דִּסְמִיכִי אַהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ! אָמַר רָבָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי כְּלָלוֹת הַסְּמוּכִים זֶה לָזֶה, הַטֵּל פְּרָט בֵּינֵיהֶם וְדוּנֵם בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: These two phrases are generalizations that are adjacent to one another, which means that this is not an instance of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, as they are not in that order. Rava said: The hermeneutical principle applies even in this case, as they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: In every place that you find two generalizations that are adjacent to one another, cast the detail that is written afterward between them, and interpret them in the manner of a generalization and a detail and a generalization. Consequently, this verse is considered to state a generalization and a detail and a generalization.
עַד שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע. הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי מִנְחַת נְסָכִים וְהַדָּם – אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן!
§ The baraita teaches: Until I include even the log of oil of a leper. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? The Gemara answers that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of the leper, one is liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, if the guilt offering that this oil accompanied became piggul; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say the latter clause: And I exclude the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, and the blood, as they do not have a permitting factor. Here we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, who dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.
דְּתַנְיָא: נִסְכֵי בְהֵמָה – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּם הַזֶּבַח מַתִּירָן לִיקָרֵב. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא אָדָם מֵבִיא אֶת זְבָחָיו הַיּוֹם, וּנְסָכִין מִיכָּן עַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים! אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי, אֶלָּא בְּבָאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח.
The Gemara elaborates: As it is taught in another baraita: With regard to the libations of an animal offering, one is liable for consuming them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the offering renders them permitted to be offered on the altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to him: But a person may bring his offerings today and the accompanying libations from now until even ten days later. Evidently, then, the blood of the offering does not render the libations permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: I too spoke only about libations that come to be sacrificed together with the offering. If so, the baraita under discussion represents two conflicting opinions.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – מַתְּנוֹתָיו שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ; וּמִדְּמַתְּנוֹתָיו שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ – מַתְּנוֹתָיו מְפַגְּלִי לֵיהּ.
Rav Yosef said: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling, that even the log of oil of a leper is included in the prohibition of piggul? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who agrees with the Rabbis that the libations of an animal offering are not permitted by the blood of the offering. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says with regard to the log of oil of a leper that it is not the blood of the guilt offering that renders it permitted; rather, the placements of its oil “before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:16) render the remainder of the oil permitted to be eaten by the priests. And from the fact that the placements of its oil render the oil permitted, by the same token the placements of its oil render it piggul, i.e., if the oil was placed with the intent that the priests should consume its remainder on the following day, one who consumes the oil is liable for consuming piggul.
דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, עַד שֶׁיִּזְרוֹק הַדָּם. נִזְרַק הַדָּם – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין.
The Gemara cites the source for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of a leper, one who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property if he derives benefit from it at any point after it has been consecrated in a service vessel, until the blood of the leper’s guilt offering is sprinkled. At this stage the oil is permitted to the priests, and therefore the prohibition against misusing property consecrated to the Temple no longer applies to it. Once the blood has been sprinkled, one may not derive benefit from the oil ab initio, by rabbinic law, as it must still be placed on the leper’s right ear, thumb, and big toe. But if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין, עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מַתְּנוֹתָיו. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מַתַּן שֶׁבַע וּמַתַּן בְּהוֹנוֹת.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One who derives benefit from the oil is liable for misusing consecrated property until the priest places its own placements, i.e., until the oil is sprinkled seven times toward the Sanctuary, as these sprinklings render the remainder of the oil permitted to the priests. And the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agree that consumption of the log of oil is prohibited until the priest places the seven placements, i.e., sprinklings, of oil toward the Sanctuary, and performs the placing of the oil on the leper’s thumb and big toe.
אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, אָמַר: גַּבְרָא רַבָּא כְּרַב יוֹסֵף, לֵימָא כִּי הָא מִילְּתָא?!
They said this statement before Rabbi Yirmeya in Eretz Yisrael, whereupon he said: Would a great man such as Rav Yosef say such a matter, that the sprinkling of the oil renders the rest of the oil piggul?
הֲרֵי לוֹג [הַבָּא] בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ – דִּלְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מַתְּנוֹתָיו שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ, וְלָא מְפַגְּלִין לֵיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּם מַתִּירוֹ לַבְּהוֹנוֹת. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
But there is the case of the log of oil that is brought by itself, i.e., where the leper brings it after he has sacrificed his offerings. There everyone agrees that its placements render the remainder of the oil permitted to the priests, and yet they do not render the oil piggul, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of a leper, one is liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the offering renders it permitted to be placed on the thumb and big toe of the leper. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: וַהֲלֹא אָדָם מֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ עַכְשָׁיו, וְלוֹג מִיכָּן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים! אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי, אֶלָּא בְּבָא עִם הָאָשָׁם.
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: But a person may bring his guilt offering today and the accompanying log of oil from now until even ten days later. Rabbi Meir said to them: I too spoke only about a log of oil that comes with the guilt offering. This indicates that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is the blood of the offering that renders the oil piggul.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וּסְמִי מִיכָּן נְסָכִים. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם לָא תִּסְמֵי; וְתָנָא לוֹג הַבָּא עִם הָאָשָׁם – וְהוּא הַדִּין לִנְסָכִים הַבָּאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח, וַהֲדַר תָּנָא נְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן – וְהוּא הַדִּין לְלוֹג הַבָּא לִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says: Actually, the aforementioned baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and omit the case of the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings from the list of items that are not subject to the halakha of piggul. Abaye says: Actually, do not omit this item from the list, and the baraita can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir as follows: The tanna first taught the halakha with regard to the log of oil that comes with the leper’s guilt offering, and the same is true of libations that come with an animal offering, as according to Rabbi Meir piggul status applies to both of these. And then the tanna taught that piggul does not apply to libations that come by themselves, and the same is true of a log of oil that comes by itself.
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי:
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the bird burnt offering, its blood renders its meat and its skin permitted to be eaten by the priests. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that the meat of a bird burnt offering is eaten by the priests, derived? The Gemara cites a baraita that Levi teaches, with regard to a verse that discusses the gifts that are to be presented to the priests: “This shall be yours of the most sacred items, from the fire: Every offering of theirs, every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every guilt offering of theirs, which they shall render to Me, shall be most sacred for you and for your sons” (Numbers 18:9).
״כׇּל קׇרְבָּנָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״מִן הָאֵשׁ״ כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו מוֹתָר מִן הָאֵשׁ הוּא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The baraita clarifies what is included by the term “every” in each of these clauses. The verse states: “Every offering of theirs,” which serves to include the log of oil of a leper; it too is given to the priests. The Gemara explains why it is necessary to derive from the verse that the oil is a gift to the priesthood: It might enter your mind to say that the oil should not be included, as the Merciful One writes in this same verse: “From the fire,” and this log of oil, notwithstanding its status as an offering, is not reserved from the fire. Only an item concerning which part of it is brought to the altar can be said to be reserved from the fire, and none of the oil is brought to the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: “Every offering of theirs,” that the oil goes to the priests.
״לְכׇל מִנְחָתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת עוֹמֶר וּמִנְחַת הַקְּנָאוֹת. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״ – וּמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לְהַתִּיר אָתְיָא, וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת לְבָרֵר עָוֹן קָאָתְיָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The phrase: “Every meal offering of theirs,” serves to include the omer meal offering, brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and the meal offering of jealousy, brought by a sota. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that as the verse states with regard to the consumption of sacrificial food by the priests: “And they shall eat those items with which atonement is achieved” (Exodus 29:33), only those foods that facilitate atonement are given to the priests. And this would exclude the omer meal offering and the meal offering of jealousy, as the omer meal offering comes to permit the consumption of the new crop, and the meal offering of jealousy comes to clarify the transgression of the sota, as part of the ordeal undergone by the woman. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: “Every meal offering of theirs,” that even these meal offerings are eaten by the priests.
״וּלְכׇל חַטָּאתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת חַטַּאת הָעוֹף. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: נְבֵילָה הִיא.
The phrase: “And every sin offering of theirs,” serves to include the bird sin offering; its meat too is given to the priests. The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that this meat should not be eaten at all, as it is an unslaughtered animal carcass, since the bird is killed by pinching its nape (see Leviticus 5:8) rather than by slaughtering, which is the manner of ritual slaughter of non-sacred birds. Therefore, the phrase: “And every sin offering of theirs,” teaches that the bird sin offering is eaten by the priests.
״לְכׇל אֲשָׁמָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לְהַכְשִׁיר קָאָתוּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The phrase: “Every guilt offering of theirs,” serves to include the guilt offering of a nazirite who contracted ritual impurity, and the guilt offering of a leper. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that these should not be given to the priests to eat, as they come to qualify these individuals, rather than to atone. The guilt offering of a nazirite renders him fit to restart his term of naziriteship, and the guilt offering of a leper qualifies him to eat sacrificial food, whereas the verse states: “And they shall eat those items with which atonement is achieved” (Exodus 29:33). Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: “Every guilt offering of theirs,” that these offerings as well are eaten by the priests.
אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר כַּאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.
The Gemara challenges: It is explicitly written with regard to the guilt offering of a leper that it is consumed by the priests: “For as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 14:13). Why, then, is this derivation necessary? Rather, the baraita means to say that the phrase: “Every guilt offering of theirs,” serves to include the guilt offering of a nazirite, teaching that it is like the guilt offering of a leper, in that both are eaten by the priests.
״אֲשֶׁר יָשִׁיבוּ״ – זֶה גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר. ״לְךָ הוּא״ – שֶׁלְּךָ יִהְיֶה, אֲפִילּוּ לְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה.
The baraita continues: With regard to the phrase “which they shall render to Me,” this is referring to an item stolen from a convert. One who robs a convert who then dies with no heirs must give the stolen item and an additional one-fifth to the priests. Finally, the term “for you” teaches that it shall be yours, even to betroth a woman with it, i.e., these gifts are considered the priest’s property in all regards.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: פִּיגֵּל בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ – פִּיגֵּל. בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים – לֹא פִּיגֵּל.
§ According to the first tanna of the mishna, the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, the blood of which is presented on the inner altar, are subject to piggul, whereas Rabbi Shimon rules that they are not subject to piggul. It is taught in a baraita that there is a third opinion concerning the matter: Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If in his service of the bulls that are burned or the goats that are burned the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul with regard to a matter that is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, he has rendered the offering piggul. If his intention was with regard to a matter that is performed inside the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, he has not rendered the offering piggul.
כֵּיצַד? הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹחֵט לְהַזּוֹת מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר״ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל, שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה בַּחוּץ בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים לֹא פִּיגֵּל. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּפְנִים, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי מַזֶּה עַל מְנָת לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִים וְלִשְׁפּוֹךְ שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל, שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה בִּפְנִים בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ.
The baraita elaborates: How so? If he was standing outside when slaughtering the animal, and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood tomorrow inside the Sanctuary, he has not rendered the offering piggul. The reason is that in the case of an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed inside, one has not rendered the offering piggul. Likewise, if he was standing inside when sprinkling, and said: I hereby sprinkle the blood of the sin offering in order to burn its sacrificial portions on the external altar and to pour out its remainder on the base of the altar tomorrow, he has not rendered the offering piggul, as this is an intention inside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.
אֲבָל הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹחֵט לִשְׁפּוֹךְ שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״, אוֹ ״לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִים לְמָחָר״ – פִּיגֵּל, שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה בַּחוּץ בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ.
But if he was standing outside, and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of pouring out the remainder of its blood tomorrow, or to burn its sacrificial portions tomorrow, he has rendered the offering piggul, as this is an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַאי קְרָא? ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״ – וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים מֵעַתָּה?
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the verse from which this is derived? The verse states with regard to the sacrificial portions of a bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, which is one of the bulls that are burned: “As it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering” (Leviticus 4:10). But what, then, do we learn from the bull of a peace offering? Everything that is specified with regard to a peace offering is stated with regard to this bull as well.
אֶלָּא מַקִּישׁ פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ לְשׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים; מָה שׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים – עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מַעֲשָׂיו וּמַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, אַף פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ – עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו וּמַעֲשָׂיו עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.
Rather, the verse juxtaposes the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest with the bull of the peace offering: Just as the bull of the peace offering is not rendered piggul unless the priest’s actions and intentions relate to the service performed on the external altar, as that is where it is offered, so too, the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest is not rendered piggul unless the priest’s intentions and actions relate to the service performed on the external altar.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says his ruling in the name of Rabbi Yosei.
אָמַר רָבָא:
Rava said:
