Zevachim 36bזבחים ל״ו ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Zevachim 36b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
36bל״ו ב

יהא חייב

the slaughterer would be liable to receive lashes?

והתניא רבי יהודה אומר יכול חטאת ששחטה בדרום יהא חייב ת"ל (דברים יז א) "לא תזבח לה' אלהיך שור ושה וגו' כל דבר רע" על דבר רע אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו על חטאת ששחטה בדרום תרי תנאי אליבא דרבי יהודה

But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: One might have thought that with regard to a sin offering that one slaughtered in the south, he would be liable for it. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox, or a sheep, that has a blemish, even any evil thing” (Deuteronomy 17:1), to teach that for slaughtering an evil thing, such as a blemished offering, you deem him liable to receive lashes, but you do not deem him liable for a sin offering that he slaughtered in the south. The Gemara answers: Here too, there are two tanna’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

אמר רבי אבא ומודה רבי יהודה שחוזר וקובעו לפיגול

§ Rabbi Abba says: Although Rabbi Yehuda says that an offering is rendered not valid if it was slaughtered with the intent that its blood would be left over until the next day, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if the priest subsequently collected, conveyed, or presented the blood with the intent to sacrifice or partake of the offering beyond its designated time, he then establishes the offering as piggul. The intent to leave it overnight does not prevent it from being rendered piggul, in contrast to intent to sacrifice or partake of it outside its designated area, or performing a sacrificial rite of the Paschal offering or a sin offering not for its own sake, which do prevent the offering from subsequently being rendered piggul (see 29b).

אמר רבא תדע דפיגול לפני זריקה לא כלום הוא ואתיא זריקה וקבעה לה בפיגול

Rava says: Know that this is so, as intent to sprinkle the blood the next day, which renders an offering piggul and which inherently includes the intent to leave the blood over until the next day so that he can then sprinkle it, is nothing before the sprinkling of the blood. And his intent during the slaughter to sprinkle the blood the next day does not render the offering piggul until the blood is sprinkled, and then the sprinkling of the blood comes and establishes the offering as piggul. Clearly, the intent to leave the blood over until the next day does not prevent the offering from subsequently being rendered piggul.

ולא היא התם הוא חדא מחשבה היא הכא תרי מחשבות

The Gemara rejects Rava’s proof: But it is not so that this is a valid proof, as there, with regard to standard piggul intent, it is one intent that is established with the sprinkling of the blood. By contrast, here, where he initially had intent to leave the blood until the next day and subsequently had intent to sprinkle it beyond its designated time, there are two separate intents. Therefore, since an improper intent already exists, the offering cannot thereafter be rendered piggul.

איתיביה רב הונא לרבי אבא ליתן את הניתנין למעלה למטה למטה למעלה לאלתר כשר חזר וחישב חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

Rav Huna raised an objection to Rabbi Abba from a baraita: If one slaughtered an offering with the intent to place the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line, or to place the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, and he had intent to do so immediately, i.e., on the same day, then it is valid, as such intent does not disqualify the offering. If he then had intent to sacrifice the offering outside its designated area, it is disqualified, but there is no liability to receive karet for it. If he had intent to sacrifice it beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for it.

למחר פסול חזר וחישב בין חוץ לזמנו בין חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת תיובתא דרבי אבא תיובתא

The baraita continues: If one had intent to place the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line or vice versa the next day, then it is disqualified, due to his intent to leave it overnight, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. In this case, if he then had intent to sacrifice the same offering either beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, it is disqualified, and there is no liability to receive karet for it. Evidently, intent to leave it overnight prevents the offering from subsequently being rendered piggul. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Abba is indeed a conclusive refutation.

אמר רב חסדא אמר רבינא בר סילא חישב שיאכלוהו טמאים למחר חייב אמר רבא תדע דבשר לפני זריקה לא חזי וכי מחשב ביה מיפסיל

§ Rav Ḥisda says that Ravina bar Sila says: If one slaughtered an offering with intent that impure individuals would eat the meat of the offering the next day, one is liable to receive karet due the prohibition of piggul. Although impure individuals are not fit to partake of the meat, this is nevertheless considered intent to partake of it beyond its designated time. Rava says: Know that this is so, as meat prior to the sprinkling of the blood is not fit to be eaten, and when one has improper intent with regard to it, it is disqualified. Clearly, intent to partake of a forbidden item beyond its designated time renders the offering piggul.

ולא היא התם זריק ומיחזי הכא לא מיחזי כלל

The Gemara rejects Rava’s proof: But it is not so, as there, with regard to standard piggul intent, he sprinkles the blood, and the meat is rendered fit to be eaten the next day. By contrast, here, it is not rendered fit to be eaten by impure individuals at all. Therefore, such intent is not considered significant intent to consume the meat after its designated time.

אמר רב חסדא מרגלא בפומיה דרב דימי בר חיננא בשר פסח שלא הוצלה ולחמי תודה שלא הורמו חייבין עליהן משום טומאה

Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana was wont to say the following halakha: With regard to the meat of a Paschal offering that was not roasted, and the loaves of a thanks offering from which the priests’ portion was not separated, although it is prohibited for them to be eaten, nevertheless one is liable to receive karet due to violating the prohibition against eating them in a state of impurity.

אמר רבא תדע דתניא (ויקרא ז כ) "אשר לה'" לרבות אימורי קדשים קלים לטומאה

Rava said: Know that this is so, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that pertain to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20). The added words “that pertain to the Lord” serve to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity with regard to impurity, teaching that one who partakes of them while impure is liable to receive karet.

אלמא אע"ג דלאו בני אכילה נינהו חייבין עליהן משום טומאה הכא נמי אע"ג דלאו בני אכילה נינהו חייבין עליהן משום טומאה

Apparently, even though they are not fit for consumption, one is liable to receive karet due to violating the prohibition against eating them in ritual impurity. Here too, with regard to the meat of a Paschal offering that was not roasted, and the loaves of a thanks offering from which the priests’ portion was not separated, even though they are not fit to be eaten, one is liable to receive karet due to violating the prohibition against eating them in impurity.

ולא היא התם אימורי קדשים קלים חזו לגבוה לאפוקי בשר פסח שלא הוצלה ולחמי תודה שלא הורמו דלא חזו לא לגבוה ולא להדיוט

The Gemara rejects Rava’s proof: But it is not so, as there, the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that are burned on the altar are at least fit for the Most High, i.e., for the consumption of the altar, and therefore one is liable to receive karet for eating them while ritually impure. This is to the exclusion of the meat of a Paschal offering that was not roasted and the loaves of a thanks offering from which the priests’ portion was not separated, which are not fit at all, not for the Most High, and not for an ordinary person.

(לישנא אחרינא הא אימורין לא חזו ולא היא הנך חזו למילתייהו והני לא חזו כלל):

The Gemara presents another version of the proof and its rejection: But the sacrificial portions are not fit, and yet one is liable if he consumes them while impure. The Gemara responds: But it is not so, since these sacrificial portions are fit for their matters, and these, i.e., the meat of a Paschal offering that was not roasted and the loaves of a thanks offering from which the priests’ portion was not separated, are not fit at all.



הדרן עלך כל הפסולין:

מתני׳ בית שמאי אומרים כל הניתנין על מזבח החיצון שנתן במתנה אחת כיפר ובחטאת שתי מתנות ובית הלל אומרים אף חטאת שנתנה מתנה אחת כיפר

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: With regard to all the offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar, even those that require that the blood be sprinkled on two opposite corners of the altar so that it will run down each of its four sides, in a case where the priest placed the blood on the altar with only one placement, he facilitated atonement. And in the case of a sin offering, which requires four placements, one on each of the four corners of the altar, at least two placements are necessary to facilitate atonement. And Beit Hillel say: Even with regard to a sin offering, in a case where the priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement after the fact.

לפיכך אם נתן את הראשונה כתיקנה ואת השניה חוץ לזמנה כיפר

Therefore, since the priest facilitates atonement with one placement in all cases other than a sin offering according to Beit Shammai, and even in the case of a sin offering according to Beit Hillel, if he placed the first placement in its proper manner, and the second with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, he facilitated atonement. Since the second placement is not indispensable with regard to achieving atonement, improper intent while performing that rite does not invalidate the offering.

ואם נתן את הראשונה חוץ לזמנה ואת השניה חוץ למקומה פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

And based on the same reasoning, if he placed the first placement with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time and he placed the second placement with the intent to eat the offering outside its designated area, the second of which does not render an offering piggul, the offering is piggul, an offering disqualified by improper intention, and one is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet] for its consumption. This is because the intent that accompanied the second placement does not supersede the piggul status of the offering.

כל הניתנין על המזבח הפנימי שאם חיסר אחת מן המתנות כאילו לא כיפר לפיכך נתן כולן כתיקנן ואחת שלא כתיקנה פסולה ואין בו כרת:

All this applies to those offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar. But with regard to all the offerings whose blood is to be placed on the inner altar, if the priest omitted even one of the placements, it is as though he did not facilitate atonement. Therefore, if he placed all the placements in their proper manner, and one placement in an improper manner, i.e., with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, the offering is disqualified, as it is lacking one placement; but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering, as the improper intention related to only part of the blood that renders the offering permitted for consumption, and an offering becomes piggul only when the improper intention relates to the entire portion of the offering that renders it permitted for consumption.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן מנין לניתנין על מזבח החיצון שנתנן במתנה אחת שכיפר תלמוד לומר (דברים יב כז) "ודם זבחיך ישפך" והאי להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to those offerings whose blood is placed on the external altar, that if the priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that a single pouring of blood suffices. The Gemara asks: But does this verse come to teach this halakha? That verse is necessary for that which is taught in another baraita discussing a different matter: