Whatever is not [offered] on the outer altar, like the peace-offering, is not subject to piggul? (1) — Rather, both agree with the Rabbis, (2) yet there is no difficulty: the one refers to outer sin-offerings, while the other refers to the inner sin-offerings. (3) As for the outer sin-offerings, it is obvious, since ‘and he shall dip’ is not written in connection therewith? — It is necessary [to teach it]: One might argue, since ‘and he shall take’ is written, (4) and if an ape came and placed [the blood] thereon [his finger], he [the priest] must take it again, it is as though ‘and he shall dip’ were written. (5) Therefore he informs us that for that very reason ‘and he shall dip’ is not written, so that it may imply the one and imply the other. (6) R. SIMEON DECLARES IT FIT IN THE CARRYING. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: R. Simeon agrees that an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies at the carrying [of the blood of] the inner sin-offerings, because it is a service which cannot be omitted, (7) But R. Simeon said: Whatever is not [offered] on the outer altar, like the peace-offering, does not entail liability on account of piggul? (8) — Said R. Joseph son of R. Hanina: He agrees that it disqualifies it, (9) a minori: If [offering] for the sake of something else disqualifies a sin-offering, though it is valid in the case of a peace-offering; is it not logical that [the intention of consuming it] after time disqualifies a sin-offering, Seeing that it disqualifies in the case of a peace-offering? (10) We have thus found [that the intention of consuming it] after time [disqualifies it]. How do we know that [the intention to eat it] without its precincts [disqualifies]? (11) If [you would learn it] from after time [by analogy], [you may refute it:] as for after time, that is because [it involves] kareth. (12) If from [sacrificing] for the sake of something else, that is because it operates at the bamah? (13) — Where does [sacrificing] for the sake of something else operate [as a disqualification]? [You must say] in the case of the Passoveroffering and the sin-offering; and the Passover-offering and the sin-offering were not sacrificed at the bamah! (14) Alternatively, It is a Scriptural analogy, [for And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten] on the third [day] (15) refers to [the disqualification of] after time, while it shall be an abhorred thing [Piggul] (16) [refers to the intention of eating it] without its precincts. (17) Raba said: If you will say that R. Simeon agrees with his son, who maintained, Between the ulam (18) and the altar is north, [R. Simeon will then hold that] an [illegitimate] intention is effective in the case of the carrying [of the blood] of inner sin-offerings only from within the entrance of the ulam. (19) And if you will say that [R. Simeon] agrees with R. Judah who maintained: The [whole of the] inner part of the Temple court is sanctified; [he will then hold that] an [illegitimate] intention is effective during the passage of the removal of the incense dishes only from the entrance of the hekal and without. (20) Again, if you will say that he holds that the sanctity of the hekal and that of the ulam is one, [then] an [illegitimate] intention is effective only from the entrance of the ulam and without. (21) And if you will say that within the entrance is as within [the hekal]; then an [illegitimate] intention is not effective even for one step save within the stretching out of his [one's] hand. (22) But if you will say that he holds that carrying without [using] the foot is not called carrying, then an [illegitimate] intention is not effective at all. Abaye said to R. Hisda's amora: (23) Ask R. Hisda, what of carrying by a lay-Israelite [zar]? — It is valid, he replied, and a Scriptural text supports me: And they killed the Passover lamb, and the priests dashed [the blood, which they received] of their hand, and the Levites flayed them. (24) R. Shesheth objected: A zar, an onen, (25)

---

(1). ↑ While we are now discussing the inner sinofferings.
(2). ↑ Who maintain that there is Piggul at the carrying of the blood.
(3). ↑ In the former case the dipping of the finger does not affect Piggul, because Scripture does not say that the priest must dip his finger in the blood, but merely that he must take of the blood with his finger, which taking means the receiving of the blood (cf. infra 48a).
(4). ↑ Lev. IV, 30.
(5). ↑ Since we interpret ‘he shall take’ in the sense that he must personally take the blood from the utensil, which is impossible without dipping his finger into it.
(6). ↑ By not saying ‘and he shall dip’ Scripture intimates that the dipping is not a service on a par with the other services, and so it is not subject to Piggul. At the same time ‘and he shall take’ definitely implies that the priest personally must do this, which is in fact dipping.
(7). ↑ Because it is unusual to slaughter it in the hekal (the inner sanctuary). Hence it is slaughtered in the Temple court and the blood carried to the horns of the inner altar in the hekal. Consequently R. Simeon's argument in the Mishnah does not apply here.
(8). ↑ For eating its flesh,
(9). ↑ Though one does not incur kareth, which is the penalty for eating Piggul.
(10). ↑ It will disqualify both the outer and the inner sin-offerings.
(11). ↑ In the case of the inner sin-offerings.
(12). ↑ V. p. 71, n. 9.
(13). ↑ V. Glos. Slaughtering for a different purpose is a disqualification of a sacrifice offered on a private bamah, when such was permitted. But slaughtering it without its precincts did not disqualify.
(14). ↑ For only votive sacrifices were offered at the bamah, which excludes these two. Hence the refutation falls to the ground.
(15). ↑ Lev. VII, 18.
(16). ↑ Ibid.
(17). ↑ Scripture, by including them both in the same verse, assimilates them to each other and makes the same law apply to both. In such a case the analogy cannot be rebutted even when there is a point of dissimilarity.
(18). ↑ Lit., ‘porch’, ‘entrance’, ‘hall’. The hall leading to the interior of the Temple.
(19). ↑ A sin-offering must be slaughtered in the north (infra Ch. V.). Now it is possible for R. Simeon to agree with his son (infra 20a) that the northern part of the Temple court (‘azarah) between the ulam and the altar, though actually to the west of the altar, and therefore one cannot apply to it the Scriptural injunction, And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord (Lev. 1, 11), is nevertheless ‘north’ in respect of sacrifices of the higher sanctity. The reason for his view in the Mishnah on 13a is that he holds an illegitimate intention expressed during the passage of the blood from the place of slaughtering to the ulam is disregarded, since this passage could altogether have been avoided by slaughtering at the entrance of the ulam. But if he agreed with R. Jose that the sacrifice must be slaughtered actually between the northern side of the altar and the northern wall of the Temple court, the passage of the blood would be an indispensable service, and therefore an illegitimate intention during that passage would disqualify it.
(20). ↑ The hekal is the ‘Holy’, the hall containing the golden altar, etc., contrad. to the Holy of Holies (Jast.). The reference is to the burning of the showbread incense, in virtue of which the showbread was permitted to be eaten, in the same way as the sprinkling of the blood permits the flesh of the sacrifice; consequently it is on a par therewith and the same law applies to both, Now, if R. Simeon holds that the whole of the inner part of the Temple court is sanctified, so that the incense can be burnt there and not necessarily at the altar only, it follows that its carriage to the altar is not an essential act, and therefore an illegitimate intention does not render the showbread Piggul.
(21). ↑ I.e.,, only at the five cubits of the thickness of the wall of the ulam. For the intention is not effective within the ulam itself, Since that is as the inner part, nor is it effective without the entrance, since the showbread incense can be burnt there.
(22). ↑ He stands at the entrance of the ulam and stretches out his hand to the pavement; an illegitimate intention during that action is effective,
(23). ↑ V. Glos.
(24). ↑ II Chron. XXXV, 11. Thus the priests were only required for the sprinkling, but the blood was brought to them (which is the carrying) by those who slaughtered the sacrifice, these being zarim.
(25). ↑ V. Glos.