אף אני לא אמרתי אלא כשנתקבל בכלי והוא גופיה מנא ידע כהנים זריזין ועבדין הייא ומשתפכין
I too said that the blood should be sprinkled only when it was collected in a vessel. The Gemara asks: But he, Rabbi Yehuda, himself, from where did he know if the blood was indeed collected? The Gemara answers: He relies on the fact that priests are vigilant, and perform their service properly and collect all of the blood. But they work swiftly, and the blood therefore spills from the cup.
והלא דם התמצית מעורב בו רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר דם התמצית קרי דם
The Gemara asks: But isn’t blood of exudate, which is unfit to be sprinkled upon the altar, mixed with the blood of the soul on the floor? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that blood of exudate is considered blood.
דתניא דם התמצית באזהרה רבי יהודה אומר בכרת
This is as it is taught in a baraita: Blood of exudate is subject to a prohibition, and one who consumes it receives lashes. This is not as severe as consuming blood of the soul, the blood that spurts out of an animal as it is being slaughtered, for which one is liable to receive karet. Rabbi Yehuda says: One who consumes blood of exudate is liable to receive karet, as this blood is treated as proper blood.
והאמר ר' אלעזר מודה רבי יהודה לענין כפרה שאינו מכפר שנאמר (דברים יב, כג) (כי הדם הוא הנפש)
The Gemara challenges this answer: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to atonement that presenting blood of exudate does not effect atonement, as it is stated: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the soul” (Leviticus 17:11).
דם שהנפש יוצאה בו קרוי דם שאין הנפש יוצאה בו אין קרוי דם
This verse indicates that blood with which the soul leaves the animal, i.e., that spurts immediately upon slaughter, is called blood; but blood with which the soul does not leave the animal, i.e., blood of exudate, is not called blood. If so, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, blood of exudate is unfit for presenting upon the altar, and collecting blood from the floor should therefore be ineffective.
אלא רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר אין דם מבטל דם
Rather, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the blood in the cup that is fit for sprinkling on the altar is not nullified by the blood of exudate, and the entire mixture may be sprinkled on the altar.
אמר להם רבי יהודה לדבריכם למה פוקקין העזרה אמרו לו שבח הוא לבני אהרן שיהלכו עד ארכובותיהן בדם
The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: According to your statement that the mixed blood on the floor may not be used, why do they plug the drain of the Temple courtyard on Passover eve and not allow the blood to flow out through it? The Rabbis said to him: It is a source of praise for the sons of Aaron that they should walk in blood up to their ankles, thereby demonstrating their love for the Temple service.
והא דם הוי חציצה לח הוא ולא הוי חציצה דתנן הדם והדיו והדבש והחלב יבישין חוצצין לחין אין חוצצין
The Gemara challenges: But the blood is an interposition between the feet of the priests and the floor of the Temple, and this should invalidate the service. The Gemara explains: The blood is moist and is therefore not an interposition, as we learned in a baraita: With regard to blood, ink, honey, and milk, when they are dry they interpose, but when they are moist they do not interpose.
והא קא מיתווסי מאנייהו ותנן היו בגדיו מטושטשין ועבד עבודתו פסולה וכי תימא דמדלו להו והתניא (ויקרא ו, ג) מדו כמדתו שלא יחסר ושלא יותיר בהולכת אברים לכבש דלאו עבודה היא
The Gemara asks further: But don’t their garments become soiled? And we learned in a baraita: If a priest’s garments were soiled and he performed a Temple rite while wearing them, his rite is disqualified. And if you would say that they raised their garments so that they would stay clean, but isn’t it taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment [middo vad]” (Leviticus 6:3). The term middo, literally, his measure, teaches that his garment must be according to his measure [kemiddato], i.e., that it should not be too short and that it should not be too long. If the priest raises his garment, it will no longer be exactly his size. The Gemara answers that the priests would walk in the blood only while carrying the sacrificial limbs to the ramp of the altar, which is not actually a rite, but only preparation for a rite.
ולא והתניא (ויקרא א, יג) והקריב הכהן את הכל זו הולכת אברים לכבש אלא בהולכת עצים למערכה דלאו עבודה היא ולעבודה היכי אזלי אזלי אאיצטבי:
The Gemara asks: And is it not one of the rites? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall bring it all and burn it upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:13); this is referring to the carrying of the limbs to the ramp? Rather, the priests would walk in the blood only while carrying wood to the arrangement of wood on the altar, which is not a rite. The Gemara asks: But if the floor of the Temple was full of blood; how did they walk to perform the actual rites without soiling their garments? The Gemara answers: They would walk on platforms raised above the floor, so that the blood would not reach their garments.
מתני׳ השוחט את הזבח לאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר כשר ורבי אליעזר פוסל
MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an offering with the intent to eat, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, e.g., the portions of the offering consumed on the altar, or with the intent to burn, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, e.g., the meat of the offering, the offering is fit, and Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit.
לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר פחות מכזית כשר לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר כחצי זית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין
One who slaughters an offering with the intent to eat, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does partake of it, or with the intent to burn, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does burn it on the altar, but his intent was to partake or burn less than an olive-bulk, the offering is fit. If his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the offering is fit, because eating and burning do not join together.
השוחט את הזבח לאכול כזית מן העור ומן הרוטב ומן הקיפה ומן האלל ומן העצמות ומן הגידין ומן הקרנים ומן הטלפים חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו כשר ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול ונותר וטמא
In the case of one who slaughters an offering with the intent to eat, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an olive-bulk from the hide, or from the gravy, or from the spices that amass at the bottom of the pot together with small amounts of meat, or from a tendon in the neck, or from the bones, or from the tendons, or from the horns, or from the hooves, the offering is fit and one is not liable to receive karet for it, neither due to the prohibition of piggul, if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent to partake of the offering beyond its designated time, nor due to the prohibition of leftover meat beyond the designated time, nor due to the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure.
השוחט את המוקדשין לאכול שליל או שיליא בחוץ לא פיגל המולק את התורין לאכול ביציהן בחוץ לא פיגל
In the case of one who slaughters sacrificial female animals with the intent to eat the fetus of those animals or their placenta outside the designated area, he has not rendered the offering piggul. Likewise, in the case of one who pinches doves, i.e., slaughters them for sacrifice by cutting the napes of their necks with his fingernail, with the intent to eat their eggs that are still in their bodies outside the designated area, he has not rendered the offering piggul. This is because the fetus, the placenta, and the eggs are not considered part of the body of the animal or the bird.
חלב מוקדשין וביצי תורין אין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול ונותר וטמא:
For the same reason, one who consumes the milk of sacrificial female animals or the eggs of doves is not liable to receive karet for it, neither due to the prohibition of piggul, nor due to the prohibition of notar, nor due to the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure.
גמ׳ אמר רבי אלעזר פיגל בזבח נתפגל השליל בשליל לא נתפגל הזבח פיגל באלל נתפגלה מוראה במוראה לא נתפגל אלל
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: If one renders an offering piggul by slaughtering it with the intent to partake of it beyond its designated time, its fetus is rendered piggul as well, and one who eats it is liable to receive karet. But if he intended to partake of the fetus beyond its designated time, the offering has not been rendered piggul. Likewise, if he rendered a bird offering piggul by having intent to partake of a tendon in the neck, which is edible, beyond its designated time, then the crop of the bird is rendered piggul as well, although it is not considered an item that is usually eaten, since there are people who eat it. But if he intended to partake of the crop beyond its designated time, then a tendon in the neck is not rendered piggul.
פיגל באימורין נתפגלו פרים בפרים לא נתפגלו אימורים
If he rendered the offering piggul, i.e., had improper intent by intending to burn the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar beyond their designated time, then the rest of the bulls are rendered piggul. Therefore, if one partakes of their meat, he is liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul. But if he intended to partake of the rest of the bulls beyond their designated time, since piggul does not apply to them, as they are not destined to be consumed on the altar or to be eaten, the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar are not rendered piggul.
לימא מסייע ליה ושוים שאם חישב באכילת פרים ובשריפתן לא עשה ולא כלום מאי לאו הא חישב באימורים נתפגלו פרים לא
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita sup-ports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: And even those who hold that piggul applies to the bulls that are burned agree that if he intended to partake of the bulls or to burn them beyond their designated time he did not do anything. This is because these bulls are not eaten or burned on the altar, and intentions can render an offering piggul only in the cases of offerings that are eaten or burned on the altar. The Gemara infers: What, is it not possible to infer that if he intended with regard to the sacrificial portions of the bulls that are consumed on the altar to burn them beyond their designated time, the bulls are rendered piggul, which is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara rejects this: No,