## Zevachim Daf 35b

###### Zevachim 35b:1
[Zevachim 35b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:1)

הָא חִישֵּׁב בָּאֵימוּרִין – נִתְפַּגְּלוּ אֵימוּרִין עַצְמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
derive instead as follows: **But** if **he intended, with regard to the sacrificial portions** of the bulls, to burn them beyond their designated time, the **sacrificial portions themselves are rendered *piggul*,** and one is liable to receive *karet* for eating them. The flesh of the bulls is never rendered *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 35b:2
[Zevachim 35b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. נִשְׁחֲטוּ – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a mishna (*Me’ila* 9a): In the case of the **bulls that are burned and** the **goats that are burned,** one who derives benefit **from them** is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property **from** the time **that they were consecrated.** Once **they were slaughtered, they are susceptible to being rendered disqualified** for sacrifice **through** contact with **one who immersed that day, and through** contact with **one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, **and through** being **left overnight** without the requirements of the offering having been fulfilled.


###### Zevachim 35b:3
[Zevachim 35b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:3)

מַאי, לָאו לִינַת בָּשָׂר – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִגּוֹ דְּפָסְלָה בְּלִינָה, פָּסְלָה בָּהּ מַחְשָׁבָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara derives: **What, is it not** referring to the **flesh** being **left overnight,** which would render it not valid? **And conclude from** the mishna that **since** the flesh **is rendered disqualified by** being **left overnight,** the flesh is also **rendered disqualified** by the **intention** to burn the sacrificial portions the next day, i.e., it is subject to *piggul*, which is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar.


###### Zevachim 35b:4
[Zevachim 35b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:4)

לָא; לִינַת אֵימוּרִים. הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן עַל בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן עַד שֶׁיּוּתַּךְ הַבָּשָׂר – מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לִינַת בָּשָׂר! מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ; רֵישָׁא אֵימוּרִים, וְסֵיפָא בָּשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** it is referring to **leaving overnight** the **sacrificial portions** of the offering, not the flesh. Likewise, only the sacrificial portions are rendered *piggul* by intent to eat them after their designated time. The Gemara asks: **But from** the fact **that the latter clause teaches:** One who derives benefit **from all of them by the place of the ashes** where they are burned is liable for **misuse** of consecrated property **until the flesh is** completely **scorched, it may be inferred that the first clause** of the mishna is also referring to the **flesh** being **left overnight.** The Gemara answers: **Are the cases comparable? This** case is **as it is, and that** case is **as it is. The first clause** is referring to the **sacrificial portions** that are consumed on the altar, **and the latter clause** is referring to the **flesh.**


###### Zevachim 35b:5
[Zevachim 35b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:5)

מוֹתֵיב (רָבָא) [רַבָּה]: וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין מְפַגְּלִין וְאֵין מִתְפַּגְּלִין: צֶמֶר שֶׁבְּרָאשֵׁי כְבָשִׂים, וּשְׂעַר שֶׁבִּזְקַן תְּיָישִׁים, וְהָעוֹר, וְהָרוֹטֶב, וְהַקֵּיפֶה, וְהָאָלָל, וְהַמּוּרְאָה, וְהָעֲצָמוֹת, וְהַגִּידִין, וְהַקְּרָנַיִם, וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, וְהַשְּׁלִיל, וְהַשִּׁילְיָא, וַחֲלֵב הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba raises an objection** to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar from a *baraita*: **And these** are portions of the offering **that do not render** an offering ***piggul*, and they do not become *piggul*:** The **wool that is on the head of** the **lambs,** the **hair that is in the beard of** the **goats, the hide, the gravy, the spices** that amass at the bottom of the pot together with small amounts of meat, **a tendon in the neck, the crop, the bones, the tendons, the horns, the hooves, the fetus, the placenta, the milk of sacrificial** animals, **and the eggs of doves.**


###### Zevachim 35b:6
[Zevachim 35b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:6)

[כּוּלָּן] לֹא מְפַגְּלִין וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין; וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא; וְהַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **All of these do not render** other items ***piggul*** in the case of intent to consume them after their designated time, **and they are not rendered *piggul*, and one is not liable** to receive *karet* **for them,** neither **due to** the prohibition of ***piggul*,** nor the prohibition of ***notar*, nor** the prohibition against partaking of the meat while **ritually impure. And one who offers up** one **of these outside** the Temple is **exempt,** since they are not fit to be sacrificed on the altar.


###### Zevachim 35b:7
[Zevachim 35b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:7)

מַאי, לָאו לֹא מְפַגְּלִין הַזֶּבַח, וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין מֵחֲמַת זֶבַח?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba explains: **What,** does the *baraita* **not** mean that all of these items **do not render the offering *piggul*** if one intends to partake of them beyond the designated time, **and they are** also **not rendered *piggul* due to** the rest of the **offering** having been rendered *piggul*? This includes the fetus and placenta, and is therefore not in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar that the rest of the offering does render them *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 35b:8
[Zevachim 35b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:8)

לָא; לֹא מְפַגְּלִין אֶת הַזֶּבַח, וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן. אִי הָכִי, הָא דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן לֹא מְפַגְּלִין וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין – הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** it means that **they do not render the offering *piggul*, and they are not rendered *piggul* due to themselves** if one had intent to partake of them beyond the designated time. But such intent with regard to the offering can render them *piggul*. The Gemara asks: **If so,** concerning **that which is taught** in **the latter clause: All of these do not render** other items ***piggul* and they are not rendered *piggul*, why do I also** need **this?** Doesn’t it teach that they are not rendered *piggul* due to the rest of the offering?


###### Zevachim 35b:9
[Zevachim 35b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:9)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל – הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא אַיְּידֵי דְבָעֵי לְמִיתְנָא נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא, תְּנָא פִּיגּוּל;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **And according to your reasoning** that the additional statement is necessary, then with regard to that which it says a third time: **One is not liable** to receive *karet* **for** them **due to** the prohibition of ***piggul*, why do I also** need **this? Rather,** the third statement does not teach an additional *halakha*, but **since** the *tanna* **wants to teach** that one is not liable to receive *karet* due to violating the prohibition of ***notar* and** the prohibition against partaking of the meat while **ritually impure, he taught** the *halakha* with regard to ***piggul*** as well.


###### Zevachim 35b:10
[Zevachim 35b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:10)

הָכָא נָמֵי, אַיְּידֵי דְבָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ, תְּנָא נָמֵי: וְכוּלָּן לֹא מְפַגְּלִין וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Here too,** it can be explained similarly: **Since** the *tanna* **wants to teach** the *halakha* that **one who offers up** one **of these** items **outside** the Temple is exempt, **he also taught: And all of these do not render** other items ***piggul* and they are not rendered *piggul*.** It may be that the rest of the offering does in fact render them *piggul*, as Rabbi Elazar stated.


###### Zevachim 35b:11
[Zevachim 35b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:11)

רָבָא אָמַר, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁלִיל אוֹ שִׁילְיָא בַּחוּץ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל, וְהַמּוֹלֵק אֶת הַתּוֹרִים לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּיצֵיהֶם בַּחוּץ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: We learn** in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar in the mishna **as well: One who slaughters sacrificial** female animals with the intent **to eat** the **fetus** of those animals **or** their **placenta outside** their designated area **has not rendered** the offering ***piggul*. And one who pinches doves,** i.e., slaughters them for sacrifice by cutting the napes of their necks with his fingernail, with the intent **to eat their eggs** that are still in their bodies **outside** their designated area, **has not rendered** the offering ***piggul*.**


###### Zevachim 35b:12
[Zevachim 35b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:12)

וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: חֲלֵב הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִים – אֵין חַיָּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא; הָא שְׁלִיל וְשִׁילְיָא – חַיָּיבִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And then it is taught:** One who consumes **the milk of sacrificial** female animals **or the eggs of doves is not liable** to receive *karet* **for** it **due to** the prohibition of ***piggul*,** nor due to the prohibition of ***notar*, nor** due to the prohibition against partaking of the meat while **ritually impure. But** it can be inferred that one who partakes of the **fetus or placenta,** which are not mentioned, is **liable** to receive *karet* due to the prohibition of *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 35b:13
[Zevachim 35b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:13)

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּאן מֵחֲמַת הַזֶּבַח, כָּאן מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, isn’t** it correct to **conclude from** the mishna that **here,** they are rendered *piggul* **due to the offering,** and **there, due to themselves,** i.e., if he had improper intent concerning them, then they are not rendered *piggul*. The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from** the mishna that it is so.


###### Zevachim 35b:14
[Zevachim 35b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:14)

תְּנַן הָתָם: וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* cited by Rabba is now discussed in a different context: **We learned** in a mishna **there** (84a) that if disqualified offerings are nevertheless brought upon the altar, they are removed, **and blemished** animals are also included in this *halakha*. **Rabbi Akiva deems blemished** animals **fit,** and if they were brought upon the altar they are not removed.


###### Zevachim 35b:15
[Zevachim 35b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶלָּא בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, הוֹאִיל וּכְשֵׁירִים בְּעוֹפוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ אֶת מוּמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva deemed fit only** an animal with a blemish **on the cornea of the eye** and similar blemishes that are not noticeable, **since they are valid in** the case of **birds. And** in addition, this **is** the *halakha* provided **that its consecration preceded its blemish,** i.e., when the animal was consecrated it was still entirely fit.


###### Zevachim 35b:16
[Zevachim 35b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּעוֹלַת נְקֵבָה, דִּכְמַאן דִּקְדַם מוּמָהּ לְהֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to a female burnt offering** that was brought upon the altar **that** since a burnt offering may be only a male animal, **it is comparable to** a case **where its blemish preceded its consecration,** since the disqualifying factor was there from the outset. Therefore, if it was brought upon the altar it must be removed.


###### Zevachim 35b:17
[Zevachim 35b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:17)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. הָא מֵאִימָּן – חַיָּיב; וְהֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? בְּעוֹלַת נְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira raises an objection** to this from the *baraita* cited by Rabba: **One who offers up** one **of these outside** the Temple is **exempt,** as they are not fit to be sacrificed on the altar. **But** it can be inferred that if he were to sacrifice **from** the flesh of the **mother of** one of **these** outside the Temple, he would be **liable. And how can you find these** circumstances? It is only **in** the case of **a female burnt offering.** This is because with regard to a peace offering, which may also be from a female animal, its flesh is not burned on the altar but is eaten. Therefore, there would be no liability for sacrificing it outside the Temple.


###### Zevachim 35b:18
[Zevachim 35b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:18)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא עוֹלַת נְקֵבָה אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד, הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אִם עָלְתָה תֵּרֵד, הָא מַנִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira explains his objection: **Granted, if you say** that **Rabbi Akiva holds** with regard to **a female burnt offering** that **if it ascended** onto the altar **it does not descend,** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? It **is** that of **Rabbi Akiva.** This is because one is liable for sacrificing any offering outside the Temple that may be sacrificed on the altar, including one that was brought upon the altar inappropriately but is not removed. **But if you say** that with regard to a female burnt offering **if it ascended** the altar **it** must **descend,** and it entirely lacks the status of an offering fit to be sacrificed on the altar, in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*?


###### Zevachim 35b:19
[Zevachim 35b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:19)

אֵימָא: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר, הָא מֵאֵימוּרֵי אִימָּן – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Say** that the inference should be as follows: **One who offers up** one **of those** items **outside** the Temple is **exempt, but** if he sacrificed **from the sacrificial portions of** the **mother of** one of **these,** he is **liable.** This *halakha* can apply to both a sin offering and a peace offering, for which a female may be brought and whose sacrificial portions are burned on the altar.


###### Zevachim 35b:20
[Zevachim 35b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:20)

וְהָא ״מֵהֶן״ קָתָנֵי – וְאִימָּן דּוּמְיָא דִּידְהוּ! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵאֵימוּרֵיהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר, הָא מֵאֵימוּרֵי אִימָּן – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** the *baraita* **teaches** this *halakha* with the term: **Of** one of **these,** indicating that it is referring to one who sacrifices the flesh, and not the sacrificial portions alone. **And** the case of **their mother** is **similar to** that of **them,** and is therefore referring to sacrificing the flesh of the mother outside the Temple, and not the sacrificial portions. **Rather, say** as follows: **One who offers up** part **of their sacrificial portions outside** the Temple is **exempt, but** one who offered up some **of the sacrificial portions of** the **mother of** one of **these** is **liable.**


###### Zevachim 35b:21
[Zevachim 35b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/35b:21)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁחָטוֹ עַל מְנָת לְהַנִּיחַ אֶת דָּמוֹ אוֹ אֵימוּרָיו לְמָחָר, אוֹ לְהוֹצִיאָן לַחוּץ – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. עַל מְנָת לִיתְּנָן עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ; שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד; וְלִיתֵּן אֶת הַנִּיתָּנִים לְמַעְלָן – לְמַטָּה; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִים לְמַטָּה – לְמַעְלָן; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִים

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **one slaughters** the animal **in order to leave its blood or its sacrificial portions for the next day, or to remove them outside** the designated area, but not in order to sacrifice them the next day, **Rabbi Yehuda deems** the offering **unfit, and the Rabbis deem** it **fit.** In the case of one who slaughters the animal **in order to place** the blood **upon the ramp** or on the wall of the altar **that** is **not opposite the base** of the altar, **or** in order **to place** the blood **that is** to be **placed above** the red line **below** the red line, **or** to place the blood **that is** to be **placed below** the red line **above** the red line, **or** the blood **that is** to be **placed**