But he teaches, ‘whether... or’? (1) That is indeed a difficulty. The Master said: ‘R. Meir said, It is Piggul, and involves kareth’. (2) But consider: one is not liable to kareth (3) until all the mattirin are offered, for a master said: As the acceptance of the valid, so is the acceptance of the invalid. As the acceptance of the valid necessitates that all its mattirin be presented, so does the acceptance of the invalid necessitate that all its mattirin be presented. (4) Now here he has [already] invalidated it [the sacrifice] by declaring an [illegitimate] intention within, so that it is as though he had not sprinkled [the blood] at all; (5) when therefore he sprinkles again in the Hekal, he is merely sprinkling water? (6) — Said Rabbah: It is possible in the case of four bullocks and four he-goats. (7) Raba said: You may even say [that R. Meir rules thus] in the case of one bullock and one he-goat: it [the sprinkling] is efficacious in respect of its Piggul status. (8) [Do you say that there are] forty-three [sprinklings]? (9) Surely it was taught [that there are] forty-seven? The former agrees with the view that you mingle [the blood of the bullock and of the he-goat] for [sprinkling on] the horns; while the latter agrees with the view that you do not mingle [them] for [sprinkling on] the horns. (10) But it was taught [that] forty-eight [are required]? — One agrees with the view that [the pouring out of] the residue [at the base of the altar] is indispensable; (11) while the other agrees with the view that the residue is not indispensable. (12) An objection is raised: When is this said? (13) In [the case of] the taking of the fistful, the placing in the vessel, and the carriage. (14) But when he comes to the burning [of the fistful and the frankincense], if he presents the fistful with a [Piggul] intention and the frankincense in silence; or if he presents the fistful in silence and the frankincense with a [Piggul] intention, — R. Meir declares it Piggul, and it involves kareth; while the Sages rule: It does not involve kareth unless he declares a Piggul intention in respect of the whole Mattir. Now he teaches incidentally, [If he presents] ‘the fistful in silence and the frankincense with a [Piggul] intention’, and yet they disagree! (15) — Say ‘having already presented the frankincense with a [Piggul] intention’. One [objection] is that that is the first clause. Moreover, it was indeed taught, (16) ‘and after that.’ (17) That is indeed a difficulty. MISHNAH. THESE ARE THE THINGS FOR WHICH ONE IS NOT LIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL: THE FISTFUL, THE INCENSE, THE FRANKINCENSE,

---

(1). ↑ Implying alternatives: either at one or at the other.
(2). ↑ V. supra 42a.
(3). ↑ For eating thereof.
(4). ↑ V. supra 28b.
(5). ↑ Var. lec. omits ‘then... at all’.
(6). ↑ This is a difficulty on the view that R. Meir's reason is that one can make a sacrifice Piggul at half a Mattir. Granted that this is possible in the case of the fistful and the frankincense of a mealoffering, it is surely impossible in the case of sprinkling, for the reason stated. — ‘He is merely sprinkling water’ means that his sprinkling of the blood is just as though he were sprinkling water, since the sacrifice is already invalid.
(7). ↑ He declared a Piggul intention during all the applications of the blood between the staves; then the blood was spilt, so that another animal was slaughtered. He sprinkled its blood on the veil (he would start there, and not repeat the first sprinklings between the staves; V. supra a) and the blood was again spilt. The same happened with the applications on the horns of the altar, and the same with the sprinklings on the top. Here then all the mattirin have been presented, and each counts as a real sprinkling because it is the blood of a different animal; consequently the first is Piggul, while the same would hold good if he declared his Piggul intention in connection with any of the other animals.
(8). ↑ If the Priest declares a Piggul intention at the slaughtering, though he thereby invalidates the sacrifice, yet the following sprinklings are counted as the presenting of its mattirin. Thus they are obviously efficacious to stamp the animal as Piggul, for otherwise an animal could not become Piggul at slaughtering, whereas it is deduced supra 13a that it does. In the same way then R. Meir holds that when some of the sprinklings are done with a Piggul intention, the subsequent sprinklings count as the presenting of the mattirin, so as to make the sacrifice Piggul.
(9). ↑ Supra a top.
(10). ↑ But each is sprinkled separately, which gives an additional four, bringing up the number to forty-seven.
(11). ↑ Hence it is regarded as another sprinkling.
(12). ↑ V. supra 40b.
(13). ↑ That a meal-offering becomes Piggul at one service.
(14). ↑ Where each service consists of a single act.
(15). ↑ R. Meir maintains that it is Piggul. Here his second act was not done with the same intention as the first, since he was silent at the first. Hence R. Meir's reason must be because he holds that one can make the sacrifice Piggul during half a Mattir.
(16). ↑ In another Baraitha.
(17). ↑ He presented the frankincense with a Piggul intention.