## Zevachim Daf 13b

###### Zevachim 13b:1
[Zevachim 13b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:1)

אֶלָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דְּאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹחֵט עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל דָּמָהּ לְמָחָר״, הָא דְּאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי מְקַבֵּל דָּמָהּ עַל מְנָת לִשְׁפּוֹךְ שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** it is **not difficult. This** statement of Rava, that intent of *piggul* does not apply to collection, is referring to a case **where** the one slaughtering the offering **says: I am hereby slaughtering** this offering **in order to collect its blood tomorrow.** Because the collection of the blood is not considered consumption, such intent does not render the offering *piggul*. **That** statement of the *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the one collecting the blood **says: I am hereby collecting its blood in order to pour** the **remainder** of the blood on the base of the altar **tomorrow.** Since pouring the remains is considered consumption of the blood on the altar, such intent renders the offering *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 13b:2
[Zevachim 13b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: וּשְׁפִיכַת שִׁירַיִם וְהַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין – לָא פָּסְלָה בְּהוּ מַחְשָׁבָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One of the Sages said to Rava: And does** prohibited **intent with regard to** the **pouring of** the **remainder** of the blood **and** the **burning of** the **sacrificial portions not disqualify** the offering, as this explanation of the *baraita* seems to indicate?


###### Zevachim 13b:3
[Zevachim 13b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:3)

וְהָתְנַן: יָכוֹל לֹא תְּהֵא מַחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת אֶלָּא בַּאֲכִילַת בָּשָׂר, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת שְׁפִיכַת שִׁירַיִם וְהַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל״ – בִּשְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר: אַחַת אֲכִילַת אָדָם, וְאַחַת אֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But didn’t we learn** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that **only** prohibited **intent with regard to consumption of the meat is effective** to render the offering *piggul*. **From where** is it derived **to include** the **pouring of** the **remainder** of the blood **and** the **burning of** the **sacrificial portions? The verse states: “And if** any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings **is at all eaten [*he’akhol ye’akhel* ]** on the third day, it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 7:18). It is derived from the repeated verb that **the verse speaks of two** types of **consumption: One is consumption** of the meat **by man,** i.e., by the priests or the owner of the offering, **and** the other **one is consumption** of the blood and the sacrificial portions **on the altar.**


###### Zevachim 13b:4
[Zevachim 13b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:4)

לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דְּאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי זוֹרֵק עַל מְנָת לִשְׁפּוֹךְ שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״, הָא דְּאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹפֵךְ שִׁירַיִם עַל מְנָת לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִין לְמָחָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **not difficult. This** case, where intent renders the offering *piggul*, is **where** the one sprinkling the blood **says: I am hereby sprinkling** the blood **in order to pour** the **remainder tomorrow.** Since sprinkling the blood is necessary for atonement, if it is performed with the intent that consumption occur beyond its designated time, the offering is rendered *piggul*. **That** case, where intent does not render the offering *piggul*, is **where he says: I am hereby pouring** the **remainder in order to burn** the **sacrificial portions tomorrow.** Although burning the portions is considered consumption, pouring the remainder of the blood is not indispensable for atonement, and therefore the offering is not rendered *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 13b:5
[Zevachim 13b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁטְּבִילַת אֶצְבַּע מְפַגֶּלֶת בְּחַטָּאת פְּנִימִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: I heard that with regard to an inner sin offering,** whose blood is sprinkled on the curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, **dipping** one’s **finger** in the blood in order to sprinkle it, if he does so with the intent of burning the offering on the altar the following day, **renders** the offering ***piggul*.**


###### Zevachim 13b:6
[Zevachim 13b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:6)

שַׁמְעַהּ אִילְפָא, אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פְּדָא. אֲמַר: כְּלוּם לָמַדְנוּ פִּיגּוּל – אֶלָּא מִשְּׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים – אֵין טְבִילַת אֶצְבַּע מְפַגֶּלֶת בָּהֶן, אַף חַטָּאת – אֵין טְבִילַת אֶצְבַּע מְפַגֶּלֶת (בהן) [בָּהּ].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ilfa heard** this statement and **said it before Rav Padda.** Rav Padda **said** in response: **Did we derive** the *halakha* of ***piggul*** with regard to all offerings **from anything but a peace offering?** The source for the *halakha* of *piggul* is the verse stated with regard to peace offerings (Leviticus 7:18). Therefore, **just as** with regard to **a peace offering,** prohibited intent while **dipping** one’s **finger** in the blood to sprinkle it on the altar **does not render it *piggul*,** as there is no requirement to sprinkle the blood of a peace offering with one’s finger rather than the containing vessel, **so too,** with regard to **a sin offering,** prohibited intent while **dipping** one’s **finger** in the blood **does not render it *piggul*.**


###### Zevachim 13b:7
[Zevachim 13b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:7)

וְכִי הַכֹּל מִשְּׁלָמִים לָמְדוּ?! אִי, מָה שְׁלָמִים – שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן אֵין מוֹצִיא מִידֵי פִּיגּוּל, אַף חַטָּאת – שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ אֵין מוֹצִיא מִידֵי פִּיגּוּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But are all** of the *halakhot* of *piggul* **derived from** the *halakha* of **a peace offering? If** that is so, then **just as** sacrifice of **a peace offering not for its sake does not preclude** its being rendered ***piggul*,** as it is still fit, **so too,** the *halakha* should be that sacrifice of **a sin offering not for its sake does not preclude** its being rendered ***piggul*.** In fact, the *halakha* is that a sin offering sacrificed not for its sake cannot become *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 13b:8
[Zevachim 13b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:8)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – מֵרִבּוּיָא דִּקְרָאֵי קָאָתְיָא; הָכָא נָמֵי, מֵרִבּוּיָא דִּקְרָא קָאָתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what have you to say** to explain this *halakha*? You must say that it is **derived from an amplification of the verse. Here too,** the *halakha* that prohibited intent while dipping one’s finger in the blood of an inner sin offering renders it *piggul* is **derived from an amplification of the verse.**


###### Zevachim 13b:9
[Zevachim 13b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בַּעֲלִיָּה זוֹ שָׁמַעְתִּי, שֶׁטְּבִילַת אֶצְבַּע מְפַגֶּלֶת. תָּהֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כְּלוּם לָמְדוּ פִּיגּוּל – אֶלָּא מִשְּׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים – אֵין טְבִילַת אֶצְבַּע מְפַגֶּלֶת בָּהֶן, אַף חַטָּאת – אֵין טְבִילַת אֶצְבַּע מְפַגֶּלֶת (בהן) [בָּהּ]!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: I heard in this upper story that** prohibited intent while **dipping** one’s **finger** in the blood of an inner sin offering **renders** it ***piggul*. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish wondered [*tahei*] at this** *halakha*: **Did** the Sages **derive** the *halakha* of ***piggul* from anything but a peace offering? Just as** with regard to **a peace offering,** prohibited intent while **dipping** one’s **finger** in the blood **does not render it *piggul*, so too,** with regard to **a sin offering,** the *halakha* should be that prohibited intent while **dipping** one’s **finger** in the blood **does not render it *piggul*.**


###### Zevachim 13b:10
[Zevachim 13b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:10)

וְכִי הַכֹּל מִשְּׁלָמִים לָמְדוּ?! אִי, מָה שְׁלָמִים – שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן אֵין מוֹצִיא מִידֵי פִּיגּוּל, אַף חַטָּאת – שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ אֵין מוֹצִיא מִידֵי פִּיגּוּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **But are all** of the *halakhot* of *piggul* **derived from** those of **a peace offering? If** so, **just as** sacrifice of **a peace offering not for its sake does not preclude** its being rendered ***piggul*, so too,** the *halakha* should be that sacrifice of **a sin offering not for its sake does not preclude** its being rendered ***piggul*.**


###### Zevachim 13b:11
[Zevachim 13b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אִין, הַכֹּל מִשְּׁלָמִים לָמְדוּ. הוֹאִיל וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ פּוֹסֵל בִּשְׁלָמִים, וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פּוֹסֵל בְּחַטָּאת; מָה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ הַפּוֹסֵל בִּשְׁלָמִים – מוֹצִיא מִידֵי פִּיגּוּל, אַף שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ הַפּוֹסֵל בְּחַטָּאת – מוֹצִיאָהּ מִידֵי פִּיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Indeed, all** of the *halakhot* of *piggul*, even this one, **are derived from a peace offering. Since in** the case of **a peace offering,** intent to consume it **outside its** designated **area disqualifies** it, **and in** the case of **a sin offering,** sacrifice **not for its sake disqualifies** it, one can infer that **just as** intent to consume the offering **outside its** designated **area, which disqualifies a peace offering, precludes** its being rendered ***piggul*, so too,** sacrifice **not for its sake, which disqualifies a sin offering, precludes its** being rendered ***piggul*.** By contrast, dipping one’s finger in the blood of an inner sin offering with intent to consume it after its designated time does not render it *piggul*, as there is no parallel *halakha* with regard to a peace offering.


###### Zevachim 13b:12
[Zevachim 13b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִצִּדַּהּ תְּבָרַאּ! מָה לְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ הַפּוֹסֵל בִּשְׁלָמִים – שֶׁכֵּן נוֹהֵג בְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים; תֹּאמַר בְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּפֶסַח וְחַטָּאת בִּלְבַד?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya says:** This inference is **inherently disjointed: What** is notable **about** intent to consume the offering **outside its** designated **area, which disqualifies a peace offering?** It is notable **in that** its disqualification **applies to all slaughtered offerings.** This is why it precludes the offering from becoming *piggul*. Need **you say** the same **with regard to** disqualification by sacrifice **not for its sake, which applies only to a Paschal offering and a sin offering?**


###### Zevachim 13b:13
[Zevachim 13b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:13)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – דָּבָר הַפּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן מוֹצִיאָם מִידֵי פִּיגּוּל, דָּבָר הַמְעַכֵּב בָּהֶן מְבִיאָן לִידֵי פִּיגּוּל;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what have you to say** to explain this derivation? One must say that it is not based on a case-to-case comparison, but on a principle that is derived from a peace offering, namely: Any **matter that disqualifies** a peace offering, e.g., intent to consume it outside its designated area, **precludes its** being rendered ***piggul*,** and any **matter that prevents** atonement if not performed **renders** the offering ***piggul*** if performed with intent to consume it beyond its designated time.


###### Zevachim 13b:14
[Zevachim 13b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:14)

הָכָא נָמֵי – דָּבָר הַפּוֹסֵל בָּהּ מוֹצִיא מִידֵי פִּיגּוּל, דָּבָר הַמְעַכֵּב בָּהּ מְבִיאָה לִידֵי פִּיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One infers therefore that **here too,** with regard to an inner sin offering, any **matter that disqualifies it,** e.g., sacrifice not for its sake, **precludes** its being rendered ***piggul*,** and any **matter that prevents** atonement if not performed **renders it *piggul*** if it is performed with intent to consume it beyond its designated time. Accordingly, dipping one’s finger in the blood with intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time renders it *piggul*, as this rite is indispensable.


###### Zevachim 13b:15
[Zevachim 13b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:15)

אָמַר רַב מָרִי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא – זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַקּוֹמֵץ, וְנוֹתֵן בִּכְלִי, וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ, וְהַמַּקְטִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mari says: We learn** in a mishna **as well** that dipping one’s finger in the blood of an inner sin offering with intent to consume it beyond its designated time renders the offering *piggul* (*Menaḥot* 12a): **This is the principle:** With regard to **anyone who removes a handful** from a meal offering, **or** who **places** the handful **in a vessel, or who conveys** the handful to the altar, **or who burns** it on the altar, if he does so with intent that the offering will be consumed after its designated time the offering is *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 13b:16
[Zevachim 13b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:16)

בִּשְׁלָמָא קוֹמֵץ – הַיְינוּ שׁוֹחֵט; מוֹלִיךְ – הַיְינוּ מוֹלִיךְ; מַקְטִיר נָמֵי – הַיְינוּ זוֹרֵק; אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן בִּכְלִי מַאי נִיהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the *halakhot* of *piggul* are derived from those of a peace offering, one can ask: **Granted,** the one who **removes** a handful of a meal offering can render the offering *piggul*, as he **is** considered equivalent to the one who **slaughters** a peace offering. Just as the blood is the essential part of an animal offering, and it is removed by slaughter, so too, the handful of a meal offering is its essential part. Likewise, the one who **conveys** the handful **is** equivalent to the one who **conveys** the blood of a peace offering, and the one who **burns** the handful **is** equivalent to the one who **sprinkles** the blood **too. But** to **what is** the one who **places** the handful **in a vessel** equivalent? From where is it derived that he, too, can render the offering *piggul*?


###### Zevachim 13b:17
[Zevachim 13b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:17)

אִילֵּימָא דְּדָמֵי לְקַבָּלָה – מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם מִמֵּילָא, הָכָא אִיהוּ קָא שָׁקֵיל וְרָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say that** placing the handful in a vessel is **comparable to collection** of the blood, as both rites involve placing the essential part of the offering in a vessel, one may respond: **Are** these rites actually **comparable? There,** in the case of a peace offering, the collection of the blood is performed passively. The blood spills into the vessel **by itself. Here,** in the case of a meal offering, the priest **takes** the handful himself **and places** it in a vessel. Clearly, placing the handful in a vessel is not equivalent to any specific rite in the sacrifice of a peace offering.


###### Zevachim 13b:18
[Zevachim 13b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:18)

אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּלָא סַגִּי דְּלָא יָהֵיב – עַל כָּרְחֵיהּ עֲבוֹדָה חֲשׁוּבָה הִיא; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא סַגִּי דְּלָא עָבֵיד לַהּ – עַל כָּרְחֵיהּ הַיְינוּ הוֹלָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, since it is not sufficient** for the handful to be sacrificed **without** first **placing** it in a service vessel, **it is, perforce, an important rite.** One who performs it can therefore render the offering *piggul* like those who perform other essential rites. **Here too,** with regard to dipping one’s finger in the blood of an inner sin offering, although it has no equivalent in the sacrifice of a peace offering, **since it is not sufficient** if the priest **does not perform it, it is perforce** considered part of the **conveying** of the blood, and the priest can render the offering *piggul* while performing it.


###### Zevachim 13b:19
[Zevachim 13b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:19)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּדָמֵי לְקַבָּלָה; וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: הָכָא מִמֵּילָא, הָתָם אִיהוּ קָא שָׁקֵיל וְיָהֵיב – כֵּיוָן דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי מַתַּן כְּלִי הוּא, מָה לִי מִמֵּילָא מָה לִי קָא שָׁקֵיל וְיָהֵיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No, actually,** placing the handful in a vessel is **comparable to** the **collection** of the blood. **And** despite the distinction **that you say,** namely, that **here,** in the case of a peace offering, the blood spills **by itself,** while **there,** in the case of a meal offering, the priest **takes** the handful himself **and places** it in the vessel, nevertheless, **since** both **this** rite **and that** rite involve **placement** of the essential part of the offering in **a vessel,** they are equivalent. **What** difference is it **to me** if the blood spills into the vessel **by itself,** and **what** difference is it **to me** if the priest **takes** the handful himself **and places** it in the vessel? By contrast, dipping one’s finger in the blood of an inner sin offering has no equivalent in a peace offering. Therefore, *piggul* does not apply to it.


###### Zevachim 13b:20
[Zevachim 13b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:20)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי – דְּתָנֵי חֲדָא: טְבִילַת אֶצְבַּע מְפַגֶּלֶת בְּחַטָּאת, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא מְפַגֶּלֶת וְלֹא מִתְפַּגֶּלֶת; מַאי, לָאו תַּנָּאֵי הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the principle that dipping one’s finger in the blood is considered part of conveying it to the curtain is **the subject of** a dispute between ***tanna’im*. As it is taught** in **one** *baraita*: **With regard to** an inner **sin offering, dipping** one’s **finger** in the blood with intent that it be consumed beyond its designated time **renders it *piggul*. And it is taught** in **another** *baraita*: Dipping one’s finger in the blood with intent that it be consumed beyond its designated time **does not render** it ***piggul*, and neither does** slaughtering the animal with the intent to dip his finger in the blood the next day **render** it ***piggul*. What, is it not** that this matter **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*?**


###### Zevachim 13b:21
[Zevachim 13b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:21)

לָא; הָא רַבָּנַן, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** both *tanna’im* agree that dipping one’s finger in the blood of an inner sin offering is part of conveying it to the curtain. Rather, **this** *baraita*, which states that a priest can render the offering *piggul* while dipping his finger in its blood, is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis** in the mishna (13a), who hold that one can render the offering *piggul* while conveying the blood to the altar. **That** *baraita*, which states the opposite, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon** in the mishna, who holds that one cannot render the offering *piggul* while conveying the blood.


###### Zevachim 13b:22
[Zevachim 13b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13b:22)

אִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַאי אִירְיָא טְבִילַת אֶצְבַּע? הָאָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the latter *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, why** is it referring **specifically** to **dipping** one’s **finger? Doesn’t he say**