## Zevachim Daf 36b

###### Zevachim 36b:1
[Zevachim 36b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:1)

יְהֵא חַיָּיב?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the slaughterer **would be liable** to receive lashes?


###### Zevachim 36b:2
[Zevachim 36b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:2)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ בַּדָּרוֹם – יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תִזְבַּח לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה וְגוֹ׳ כֹּל דָּבָר רָע״ – עַל דָּבָר רָע אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ עַל חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ בַּדָּרוֹם! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says:** One **might** have thought that with regard to **a sin offering that one slaughtered in the south, he would be liable** for it. Therefore, **the verse states: “You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox, or a sheep,** that has a blemish, even **any evil thing”** (Deuteronomy 17:1), to teach that **for** slaughtering **an evil thing,** such as a blemished offering, **you deem him liable** to receive lashes, **but you do not deem him liable for a sin offering that he slaughtered in the south.** The Gemara answers: Here too, there are **two *tanna’im*,** and they disagree **with regard to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Zevachim 36b:3
[Zevachim 36b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שֶׁחוֹזֵר וְקוֹבְעוֹ לְפִיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Abba says:** Although Rabbi Yehuda says that an offering is rendered not valid if it was slaughtered with the intent that its blood would be left over until the next day, **Rabbi Yehuda concedes that** if the priest subsequently collected, conveyed, or presented the blood with the intent to sacrifice or partake of the offering beyond its designated time, **he then establishes** the offering **as *piggul*.** The intent to leave it overnight does not prevent it from being rendered *piggul*, in contrast to intent to sacrifice or partake of it outside its designated area, or performing a sacrificial rite of the Paschal offering or a sin offering not for its own sake, which do prevent the offering from subsequently being rendered *piggul* (see 29b).


###### Zevachim 36b:4
[Zevachim 36b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: תִּדַּע – דְּפִיגּוּל לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה לָא כְּלוּם הוּא, וְאָתְיָא זְרִיקָה וְקָבְעָה לַהּ בְּפִיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Know** that this is so, **as** intent to sprinkle the blood the next day, which renders an offering ***piggul*** and which inherently includes the intent to leave the blood over until the next day so that he can then sprinkle it, **is nothing before** the **sprinkling** of the blood. And his intent during the slaughter to sprinkle the blood the next day does not render the offering *piggul* until the blood is sprinkled, **and** then the **sprinkling** of the blood **comes and establishes** the offering **as *piggul*.** Clearly, the intent to leave the blood over until the next day does not prevent the offering from subsequently being rendered *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 36b:5
[Zevachim 36b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:5)

וְלָא הִיא; הָתָם הוּא חֲדָא מַחְשָׁבָה הִיא, הָכָא תְּרֵי מַחְשָׁבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects Rava’s proof: **But it is not so** that this is a valid proof, as **there,** with regard to standard *piggul* intent, **it is one intent** that is established with the sprinkling of the blood. By contrast, **here,** where he initially had intent to leave the blood until the next day and subsequently had intent to sprinkle it beyond its designated time, there are **two** separate **intents.** Therefore, since an improper intent already exists, the offering cannot thereafter be rendered *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 36b:6
[Zevachim 36b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:6)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרַבִּי אַבָּא: לִיתֵּן אֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה, לְמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה; לְאַלְתַּר – כָּשֵׁר. חָזַר וְחִישֵּׁב חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna raised an objection to Rabbi Abba** from a *baraita*: If one slaughtered an offering with the intent **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, and he had intent to do so **immediately,** i.e., on the same day, then it is **valid,** as such intent does not disqualify the offering. If **he then had intent** to sacrifice the offering **outside its** designated **area,** it is **disqualified, but there is no** liability to receive ***karet* for it.** If he had intent to sacrifice it **beyond its** designated **time,** then it is rendered ***piggul*, and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for it.**


###### Zevachim 36b:7
[Zevachim 36b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:7)

לְמָחָר – פָּסוּל. חָזַר וְחִישֵּׁב בֵּין חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ בֵּין חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If one had intent to place the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line or vice versa **the next day,** then it is **disqualified,** due to his intent to leave it overnight, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. In this case, if **he then had intent** to sacrifice the same offering **either beyond its** designated **time or outside its** designated **area,** it is **disqualified, and there is no** liability to receive ***karet* for it.** Evidently, intent to leave it overnight prevents the offering from subsequently being rendered *piggul*. The Gemara concludes: **The refutation of** the opinion of **Rabbi Abba** is indeed **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Zevachim 36b:8
[Zevachim 36b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:8)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא בַּר סֵילָא: חִישֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּהוּ טְמֵאִים לְמָחָר – חַיָּיב. אָמַר רָבָא: תִּדַּע, דְּבָשָׂר לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה לָא חֲזֵי, וְכִי מְחַשֵּׁב בֵּיהּ – מִיפְּסִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥisda says** that **Ravina bar Sila says:** If one slaughtered an offering with **intent that impure** individuals **would eat** the meat of the offering **the next day,** one is **liable** to receive *karet* due the prohibition of *piggul*. Although impure individuals are not fit to partake of the meat, this is nevertheless considered intent to partake of it beyond its designated time. **Rava says: Know** that this is so, **as meat prior to** the **sprinkling** of the blood is **not fit** to be eaten, **and when** one **has** improper **intent with regard to it,** it is **disqualified.** Clearly, intent to partake of a forbidden item beyond its designated time renders the offering *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 36b:9
[Zevachim 36b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:9)

וְלָא הִיא; הָתָם זָרֵיק וּמִיחֲזֵי, הָכָא לָא מִיחְזֵי כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects Rava’s proof: **But it is not so,** as **there,** with regard to standard *piggul* intent, **he sprinkles** the blood, **and** the meat **is rendered fit** to be eaten the next day. By contrast, **here,** it is **not rendered fit** to be eaten by impure individuals **at all.** Therefore, such intent is not considered significant intent to consume the meat after its designated time.


###### Zevachim 36b:10
[Zevachim 36b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:10)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, מַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַב דִּימִי בַּר חִינָּנָא: בְּשַׂר פֶּסַח שֶׁלֹּא הוּצְלָה, וְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda says** that **Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana was wont to say** the following *halakha*: With regard to **the meat of a Paschal offering that was not roasted, and the loaves of a thanks offering** from **which** the priests’ portion **was not separated,** although it is prohibited for them to be eaten, nevertheless **one is liable** to receive *karet* **due to** violating the prohibition against eating **them** in a state of **impurity.**


###### Zevachim 36b:11
[Zevachim 36b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:11)

אָמַר רָבָא: תִּדַּע, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לַה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לְטוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Know** that this is so, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that pertain to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20). The added words **“that pertain to the Lord”** serve **to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity with regard to impurity,** teaching that one who partakes of them while impure is liable to receive *karet*.


###### Zevachim 36b:12
[Zevachim 36b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:12)

אַלְמָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָאו בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה; הָכָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָאו בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Apparently, even though they are not fit for consumption, one is liable** to receive *karet* **due to** violating the prohibition against eating **them** in **ritual impurity. Here too,** with regard to the meat of a Paschal offering that was not roasted, and the loaves of a thanks offering from which the priests’ portion was not separated, **even though they are not fit to be eaten, one is liable** to receive *karet* **due to** violating the prohibition against eating **them** in **impurity.**


###### Zevachim 36b:13
[Zevachim 36b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:13)

וְלָא הִיא; הָתָם – אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים חֲזוּ לְגָבוֹהַּ; לְאַפּוֹקֵי בְּשַׂר פֶּסַח שֶׁלֹּא הוּצְלָה וְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ – דְּלָא חֲזוּ לָא לְגָבוֹהַּ וְלָא לְהֶדְיוֹט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects Rava’s proof: **But it is not so,** as **there, the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity** that are burned on the altar are at least **fit for** the **Most High,** i.e., for the consumption of the altar, and therefore one is liable to receive *karet* for eating them while ritually impure. This is **to the exclusion of the meat of a Paschal offering that was not roasted and** the **loaves of a thanks offering** from **which** the priests’ portion **was not separated, which are not fit** at all, **not for** the **Most High, and not for an ordinary** person.


###### Zevachim 36b:14
[Zevachim 36b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:14)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: הָא אֵימוּרִין לָא חֲזוּ! וְלָא הִיא; הָנָךְ חֲזוּ לְמִילְּתַיְיהוּ, וְהָנֵי לָא חֲזוּ כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents **another version** of the proof and its rejection: **But** the **sacrificial portions** are **not fit,** and yet one is liable if he consumes them while impure. The Gemara responds: **But it is not so,** since **these** sacrificial portions are **fit for their matters, and these,** i.e., the meat of a Paschal offering that was not roasted and the loaves of a thanks offering from which the priests’ portion was not separated, **are not fit at all.**


###### Zevachim 36b:15
[Zevachim 36b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:15)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל הַפְּסוּלִין**


###### Zevachim 36b:16
[Zevachim 36b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:16)

מַתְנִי׳ **בֵּית שַׁמַּאי** אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, שֶׁנָּתַן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר. וּבְחַטָּאת – שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף חַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Beit Shammai say:** With regard to **all** the offerings **whose** blood is to be **placed on the external altar,** even those that require that the blood be sprinkled on two opposite corners of the altar so that it will run down each of its four sides, in a case **where** the priest **placed** the blood on the altar **with** only **one placement, he facilitated atonement. And in** the case of **a sin offering,** which requires four placements, one on each of the four corners of the altar, at least **two placements** are necessary to facilitate atonement. **And Beit Hillel say: Even** with regard to **a sin offering,** in a case **where** the priest **placed** the blood with **one placement, he facilitated atonement** after the fact.


###### Zevachim 36b:17
[Zevachim 36b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:17)

לְפִיכָךְ אִם נָתַן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְּתִיקְנָהּ וְאֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ – כִּיפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Therefore,** since the priest facilitates atonement with one placement in all cases other than a sin offering according to Beit Shammai, and even in the case of a sin offering according to Beit Hillel, **if he placed the first** placement **in its proper manner, and the second** with the intent to eat the offering **beyond its** designated **time, he facilitated atonement.** Since the second placement is not indispensable with regard to achieving atonement, improper intent while performing that rite does not invalidate the offering.


###### Zevachim 36b:18
[Zevachim 36b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:18)

וְאִם נָתַן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ וְאֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** based on the same reasoning, **if he placed the first** placement with the intent to eat the offering **beyond its** designated **time and** he placed **the second** placement with the intent to eat the offering **outside its** designated **area,** the second of which does not render an offering *piggul*, the offering is ***piggul*,** an offering disqualified by improper intention, **and one is liable** to receive **excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*] for its** consumption. This is because the intent that accompanied the second placement does not supersede the *piggul* status of the offering.


###### Zevachim 36b:19
[Zevachim 36b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:19)

כׇּל הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי – שֶׁאִם חִיסֵּר אַחַת מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר. לְפִיכָךְ, נָתַן כּוּלָּן כְּתִיקְנָן וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא כְּתִיקְנָהּ – פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
All this applies to those offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar. But with regard to **all** the offerings **whose** blood is to be **placed on the inner altar, if** the priest **omitted** even **one of the placements, it is as though he did not facilitate atonement. Therefore,** if **he placed all** the placements **in their proper manner, and one** placement **in an improper manner,** i.e., with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, the offering is **disqualified,** as it is lacking one placement; **but there is no** liability for ***karet* for** one who partakes of the offering, as the improper intention related to only part of the blood that renders the offering permitted for consumption, and an offering becomes *piggul* only when the improper intention relates to the entire portion of the offering that renders it permitted for consumption.


###### Zevachim 36b:20
[Zevachim 36b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/36b:20)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – שֶׁכִּיפֵּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״. וְהַאי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **with regard to** those offerings whose blood is **placed on the external altar, that** if the priest **placed** the blood **with one placement, he facilitated atonement? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured** upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that a single pouring of blood suffices. The Gemara asks: **But does this** verse **come to** teach **this** *halakha*? **That** verse **is necessary for that which is taught** in another *baraita* discussing a different matter: