## Zevachim Daf 27a

###### Zevachim 27a:1
[Zevachim 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:1)

חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
to burn or eat the offering or sprinkle its blood **outside its** designated **area,** the offering is **disqualified, and there is no** liability for ***karet* for** burning or partaking of **it.** But if he had intent to perform one of those actions **beyond its** designated **time,** then it is rendered ***piggul*, and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** burning or partaking of **it.**


###### Zevachim 27a:2
[Zevachim 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:2)

לְמָחָר – פָּסוּל. חָזַר וְחִישֵּׁב בֵּין חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ בֵּין חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly **the next day,** beyond the permitted time, then the offering is **disqualified.** Nevertheless, it is not rendered *piggul*, because he also had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly. Therefore, if **he subsequently had intent** to sacrifice the offering or consume its meat, **whether beyond its** designated **time or outside its** designated **area,** it is **disqualified and there is no** liability for ***karet* for** burning or partaking of **it,** because an offering can be rendered *piggul* only if it would have otherwise been fit.


###### Zevachim 27a:3
[Zevachim 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:3)

וְאִי שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כִּמְקוֹמוֹ דָּמֵי, הַאי פָּסוּל?! פִּיגּוּל הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But if** blood sprinkled **not in its** proper **place** is considered **as** though it were sprinkled in **its** proper **place,** then in **this** case above, where he had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly the next day, is the offering merely **disqualified?** Since **it is** considered as though he had intent to sprinkle the blood properly the next day, shouldn’t the offering be rendered ***piggul*?**


###### Zevachim 27a:4
[Zevachim 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:4)

אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: זְרִיקָה דְּשָׁרְיָא בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה – מַיְיתְיָא לִידֵי פִּיגּוּל, זְרִיקָה דְּלָא שָׁרְיָא בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה – לָא מַיְיתְיָא לִידֵי פִּיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra said:** Intent with regard to **sprinkling that permits** the **meat for consumption** can **cause** the offering **to** become ***piggul*.** Intent with regard to **sprinkling that does not render** the **meat permitted for consumption does not cause** it **to** become ***piggul*.** Even Shmuel concedes that although the owner achieves atonement, if the blood is sprinkled in an improper place the meat may not be consumed. Accordingly, this offering is not rendered *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 27a:5
[Zevachim 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְמָר זוּטְרָא: מְנָא לָךְ הָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו... פִּגּוּל יִהְיֶה״ – מִי שֶׁפִּיגּוּלוֹ גָּרַם לוֹ; יָצָא זֶה – שֶׁאֵין פִּיגּוּלוֹ גָּרַם לוֹ, אֶלָּא אִיסּוּר דָּבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: From where do you** derive **this?** Mar Zutra replied: I derive it from a verse, **as it is written: “And if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten** on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offers it, **it shall be *piggul*”** (Leviticus 7:18). The verse indicates that only an offering **whose** intent of ***piggul*** alone **caused it** to be disqualified is considered *piggul*. **Excluded is this** case, **whose** intent of ***piggul*** alone **did not cause it** to be disqualified; **rather, the prohibition of something else,** i.e., the intent to sprinkle the blood in an improper location, **caused it** to be disqualified.


###### Zevachim 27a:6
[Zevachim 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:6)

אִי הָכִי, אִיפְּסוֹלֵי נָמֵי לָא לִיפְּסֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: But **if so,** i.e., if blood applied not in its proper place is considered as though it were applied in its proper place, and the intent to sprinkle the blood the next day does not render the offering *piggul*, then **it should not even be disqualified** due to such an intention. Why, then, does the *baraita* rule that it is disqualified?


###### Zevachim 27a:7
[Zevachim 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:7)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּחְשֶׁבֶת הִינּוּחַ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** In general, intent to perform the rites of an offering beyond its designated time disqualifies the offering, even when it does not render it *piggul*, **just as is** the case **with regard to the intent to leave** portions of the offering for the next day, as taught in a mishna in the next chapter (35b), **and according to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda** there, that intent to leave the blood until the next day rather than sprinkling it on the altar disqualifies the offering even though it does not render it *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 27a:8
[Zevachim 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:8)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם פָּסוּל מַמָּשׁ, וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כִּמְקוֹמוֹ דָּמֵי. וְלָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן שֶׁנָּתַן בִּשְׁתִיקָה, כָּאן שֶׁנָּתַן בַּאֲמִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites additional opinions with regard to the statement of the mishna that blood misapplied on the altar disqualifies the offering. **Reish Lakish says: Actually,** when the mishna states that the offering is **disqualified,** this is to be taken **literally,** i.e., that the owner does not even achieve atonement through it. **And** nevertheless, blood sprinkled **not in its** proper **place is considered as** though it were sprinkled in **its** proper **place,** and it effects atonement. **And** the apparent contradiction between these two claims is **not difficult: Here, where** misapplication of the blood effects atonement, it is a case **where he placed** it **in silence,** i.e., without specific intent; **there,** in the mishna, it is a case **where he placed** it **with a statement,** i.e., intent to consume the offering beyond its appointed time.


###### Zevachim 27a:9
[Zevachim 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:9)

תְּנַן: חִישֵּׁב לִיתֵּן אֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה; לְמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה עַד מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּחְשֶׁבֶת הִינּוּחַ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since Reish Lakish agrees with the statement of Shmuel that blood applied not in its proper place is considered as though it were applied in its proper place, the Gemara poses the same difficulties to the statement of Reish Lakish as posed above to Shmuel: **We learned** in a *baraita*: If one slaughtered an offering and **had intent to place** the blood **that is** to be **placed below** the red line **above** the red line, or to place the blood that is to be placed **above** the red line **below** the red line, etc., **until** the response of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: **Just as is** the case **with regard to the intent to leave** portions of the offering for the next day, **and according to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda, etc.**


###### Zevachim 27a:10
[Zevachim 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:10)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי שֶׁנָּתַן בִּשְׁתִיקָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לָאו כִּמְקוֹמוֹ דָּמֵי. וְהָא דְּאִיכָּא דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, הָא דְּלֵיכָּא דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** Both **here and there,** i.e., in the mishna here as well as in the mishna in the next chapter (32a), it is a case **where he placed** the blood **in silence. And** the mishna here rules that the offering is completely disqualified because blood applied **not in its** proper **place is not considered as** though it were applied in **its** proper **place. And that** mishna in the next chapter, which states that the blood may be collected and sprinkled again, is referring to a case **where there is blood of the soul** left in the animal to sprinkle again, while **this** mishna is referring to a case **where there is no blood of the soul** left.


###### Zevachim 27a:11
[Zevachim 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:11)

תְּנַן: פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **We learned** in the mishna that if the blood was misapplied on the altar, the offering is **disqualified, but there is no** liability for ***karet* for** one who partakes of the meat. **Granted, according to Reish Lakish,** who explains that the mishna is referring to one who expresses intent to sacrifice or consume the offering beyond its designated time, **this is** the reason **that** the *tanna* **teaches: Disqualified, but there is no** liability for ***karet* for** burning or partaking of **it,** to stress that although one sprinkled the blood with intent of *piggul*, since the sprinkling was performed improperly, his intent does not render the offering *piggul*, and one who partakes of it is not liable to receive *karet*.


###### Zevachim 27a:12
[Zevachim 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:12)

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who explains that the mishna is referring to a case where the blood was sprinkled with no specific intent, of **what** necessity is the clause: **There is no** liability for ***karet* for** burning or partaking of **it?** Since the offering is disqualified because the blood was placed not in its proper place, and there was no intent of *piggul*, why would one think that there should be liability for *karet*? The Gemara responds: Indeed, this clause is **difficult** for Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Zevachim 27a:13
[Zevachim 27a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:13)

וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, מַאי אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם נָתַן בְּמַחְשָׁבָה – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Shmuel,** of **what** necessity is the clause: **There is no** liability for ***karet* for** burning or partaking of **it?** The Gemara responds: **This** is what the mishna **is saying: If one placed** the blood improperly **with intent** that would otherwise render the offering *piggul*, the offering is **disqualified, but there is no** liability for ***karet* for** burning or partaking of **it,** because such sprinkling would not have permitted the meat for consumption.


###### Zevachim 27a:14
[Zevachim 27a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:14)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – אִי שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לָאו כִּמְקוֹמוֹ דָּמֵי; לֶיהֱוֵי כִּי נִשְׁפַּךְ מִן הַכְּלִי עַל הָרִצְפָּה – וְיַאַסְפֶנּוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And** according to **Rabbi Yoḥanan, if** blood sprinkled **not in its** proper **place is not considered as** though it were sprinkled in **its** proper **place, it should be as if it spilled from the** service **vessel onto the floor, and let** the priest **gather it up** and sprinkle it again properly. Why, then, does the mishna rule that it is disqualified?


###### Zevachim 27a:15
[Zevachim 27a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/27a:15)

סָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר לֹא יַאַסְפֶנּוּ. דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה, לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה; שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן – לֹא יַאַסְפֶנּוּ. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה, לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה – שֶׁרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא יַאַסְפֶנּוּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יַאַסְפֶנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The *tanna* of the mishna **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says: He may not gather it up. As Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All concede with regard to** the blood **that is** to be **placed above** the red line **that** if **one placed it above** the red line, and likewise with regard to the blood that is to be placed **below** the red line if one **placed it below** the red line, **not in accordance with** the procedure dictated by **its mitzva,** e.g., with the left hand or with improper intent, **he may not gather it up** again. **They disagree only with regard to** the blood **that is** to be **placed above** the red line **that one placed below** the red line, and blood that is to be placed **below** the red line **that one placed above** the red line, **as Rabbi Yosei says: He may not gather it up, and Rabbi Shimon says: He may gather it up.**