if deliberately, it is not accepted. (1) This was said only of a private sacrifice, but a public sacrifice, whether done unwittingly or deliberately, is accepted. But a heathen [‘s sacrifice], whether it is done unwittingly or deliberately, is not accepted. Now, the Rabbis stated the following in R. Papa's presence: With whom does this agree? Not with R. Jose, for if [it agrees with] R. Jose, surely he said: I hold that a stringent view should be taken on all these matters? (2) Said R. Papa to them: You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Jose: there it is different, because Scripture says, [that it may be accepted] for them [before the Lord]: (3) for them, but not for heathens. Said R. Huna the son of R. Nathan to R. Papa: If so, [when Scripture says,] [Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel] which they hallow unto Me, (4) does that also mean: They, but not heathens? (5) — Rather said R. Ashi: Scripture says, ‘that it may be accepted for them’, whilst heathens are not subject to ‘acceptance’. MISHNAH. THE THINGS WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL, (6) INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT EXCEPT BLOOD. R. SIMEON DECLARES ONE LIABLE IN RESPECT OF ANYTHING WHICH IS NORMALLY EATEN, BUT THE WOOD, THE FRANKINCENSE AND THE INCENSE DO NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF DEFILEMENT. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that liability on account of defilement is incurred only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar; (7) and that is logical: If liability on account of Piggul is incurred only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar, though it is fixed [invariable], and [is incurred] in one state of awareness, and was never permitted contrary to its general prohibition; (8) then surely it is logical that defilement involves liability only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar, seeing that it requires a variable burnt-offering,9 two states of awareness, (10) and is [sometimes] permitted in opposition to its general prohibition. Therefore Scripture wrote, [Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel,] which they hallow unto Me. (11) You might think [that liability is involved] immediately; (12) therefore Scripture teaches, [Whoever he be...] that approacheth [unto the holy things... having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me]. (13) Now R. Eleazar said: Is then one who [merely] touches [the holy things] liable? (14) Why does it say ‘that approacheth’? (15) [To teach that] the Writ speaks of flesh which was made fit to be offered. (16) How so? If it has mattirin, [culpability is incurred] only when the mattirin have been offered; if it has no mattirin, [culpability is incurred] as soon as it is sanctified in a [sacred] vessel. We have thus found [it of] defilement. How do we know [it of] nothar? (17) Identity of law with defilement is learnt from the fact that ‘profanation’ is written in both. Yet let us learn identity of law from Piggul, because ‘iniquity’ is written in connection with both? — Reason asserts that we should learn it from uncleanness, because [they are alike in respect of] Gezel, [this being a] mnemonic. (18) On the contrary, one should learn it from Piggul, because [it resembles it in the following points:] permissibility, the headplate, cleanness, time, that which is offered; and these are more numerous? (19) — Rather, it [is derived] from Levi's teaching. For Levi taught: How do we know that the Writ speaks of time disqualification too? (20) Because it says, That they profane not [My holy name]: (21)

---

(1). ↑ Lit., ‘made acceptable’. The language is Biblical, cf. Lev. I, 4: and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him — i.e., the sacrifice effects its purpose. By Biblical law it is accepted in both cases, but the Rabbis penalized the priests by not permitting the flesh to be eaten when it was done deliberately.
(2). ↑ Thus he regards the heathen's sacrifice the same as an Israelite's sacrifice; then here too the same law should apply to both.
(3). ↑ Ex. XXVIII, 38. The passage refers to the wearing of the head-plate by the High Priest, and teaches (according to the Talmudic interpretation) that in virtue of this wearing sacrifices are accepted, i.e., valid, even when the blood is defiled.
(4). ↑ Lev. XXII, 2.
(5). ↑ I.e., that unclean priests need not separate themselves from the sacrifices of heathens. — Surely R. Jose said that he takes a stringent view in all these matters?
(6). ↑ As enumerated in the Mishnah 42b seq.
(7). ↑ V. notes on Mishnah 42b.
(8). ↑ The sin-offering for eating Piggul is fixed, and is the same for rich and poor alike — a lamb or a she-goat. It is incurred in one state of awareness, i.e., to be liable it is not necessary that one should know at first that it is Piggul, then forget and eat it, and then become aware of it again, as it is in the case of defilement (v. note 2, p. 230). If only one ate it unwittingly, not having known at all that it was unclean, and then become aware of it, there is culpability. Again, the prohibition of Piggul is never raised, even if all the sacrifices of the whole community had been rendered Piggul, whereas in the case of uncleanness, if the whole community was in a state of uncleanness, the Passoveroffering is brought and is eaten in that same state too.
(9). ↑ A wealthy man offers an animal-sacrifice; a poor man two doves; and a very poor man offers the tenth of an ephah of meal.
(10). ↑ For one to be culpable he must have known at first that it was unclean, then forgotten and eaten it, and then learn of its uncleanness again (Shebu. 4a).
(11). ↑ Lev. XXII, 2. The passage refers to uncleanness, and ‘which they hallow unto Me’ is an extension (being superfluous in itself), and therefore includes all hallowed things.
(12). ↑ As soon as it is dedicated liability is incurred for eating it in an unclean state.
(13). ↑ Ibid. 3.
(14). ↑ Surely not, for culpability is incurred only for eating (as in v. 4.)!
(15). ↑ Which implies mere touch.
(16). ↑ ‘Offered’ is the same root as ‘approacheth’;
(17). ↑ That there is liability even where there are no mattirin.
(18). ↑ G = Guf (body); Z =Zerikah (sprinkling); and L = hillul. Nothar and defilement are both intrinsic (i.e., bodily) disqualifications in the flesh, whereas Piggul is disqualification through intention. Nothar and defilement do not disqualify through the sprinkling of the blood, whereas Piggul does. And finally, hillul (profanation) is written in connection with nothar and defilement, but not in connection with Piggul.
(19). ↑ (i) Nothar and Piggul are never permitted in opposition to the general interdict, whereas defilement is. (ii) The head-plate does not propitiate for these, though it does in the case of defilement (v. supra a bottom and note a.l.). (Though we are now discussing the uncleanness of the person, whereas the head-plate propitiates only if the blood of the sacrifice is unclean, nevertheless it is true to say that the head-plate does propitiate in a case of uncleanness.) (iii) Nothar and Piggul are both clean. (iv) Both are disqualified through the time element, nothar because it was left until after the proper time, Piggul because of an illegitimate intention in respect of after time. Finally, (v) they are both disqualifications in respect of the sacrifice, which is offered; whereas defilement is a disqualification of the priest, who offers it.
(20). ↑ Such as nothar.
(21). ↑ Lev. XXII, 2.