## Zevachim Daf 42b

###### Zevachim 42b:1
[Zevachim 42b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:1)

וְהָא ״בֵּין בֵּין״ קָתָנֵי! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can Rav Ashi explain the *baraita* as referring to a case where the High Priest had an improper intention during the first, second, and third sets of sprinklings? **But doesn’t** the *baraita* **teach:** If the priest had an intention that can render the offering *piggul*, **whether** during the first set of presentations, **whether** during the second set, or whether during the third set? This indicates that he did not have improper intent during all the sprinklings but only in part of them. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is **difficult,** as the wording of the *baraita* does not suit this interpretation.


###### Zevachim 42b:2
[Zevachim 42b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:2)

אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. מִכְּדֵי כָּרֵת לָא מִיחַיַּיב עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ כׇּל מַתִּירָיו – דְּאָמַר מָר: כְּהַרְצָאַת כָּשֵׁר כָּךְ הַרְצָאַת פָּסוּל; מָה הַרְצָאַת כָּשֵׁר – עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ כׇּל מַתִּירָיו, אַף הַרְצָאַת פָּסוּל – עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ כׇּל מַתִּירָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the *baraita* that addresses the blood presented inside the Sanctuary. **The Master said** that if the High Priest had an improper intention in one of the sets of presentations, e.g., inside the Holy of Holies, **Rabbi Meir says:** The offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for its** consumption, despite the fact that he performed the rest of the rite silently. The Gemara asks: **Now** consider, **one is not liable** to receive ***karet* unless all the permitting factors** of the offering **have been sacrificed,** i.e., if the whole service is completed, including the presentation of the blood. **As the Master said: As** is **the acceptance of a valid** offering, **so** is **the** lack of **acceptance of a disqualified** offering: **Just as** there is no **acceptance of a valid** offering **unless all its permitting factors have been sacrificed, so too,** there is no lack of **acceptance of a disqualified** offering, i.e., it is not rendered *piggul*, **unless all its permitting factors have been sacrificed.** That is to say, in the absence of one of its permitting factors it does not become *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 42b:3
[Zevachim 42b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:3)

וְהָא כֵּיוָן דְּחַשֵּׁיב בֵּיהּ בִּפְנִים פְּסוּלָה – כְּמַאן דְּלָא אַדֵּי דָּמֵי; כִּי הָדַר מַדֵּי בַּהֵיכָל – מַיָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּקָא מַדֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** here, in the case of the bull or goat of Yom Kippur, **since he intended** to burn the offering beyond its designated time while he was sprinkling the blood **inside** the Holy of Holies, the sprinkling is **not valid,** and therefore the High Priest is **considered like one who did not sprinkle** the blood, as every one of the sprinklings of the blood of an inner sin offering is indispensable. If so, **when** he **sprinkles** the blood **again** later **in the Sanctuary,** on the Curtain and the inner altar, it is as though **he is merely sprinkling water,** and not the blood of the offering. Consequently, the permitting factors of the offering have not been sacrificed, and therefore the offering should not be rendered *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 42b:4
[Zevachim 42b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:4)

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה פָּרִים וּבְאַרְבָּעָה שְׂעִירִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba says: You find it** in a case **of four bulls and of four goats.** After sprinkling blood inside the Holy of Holies with the intent to burn the offering beyond its designated time, the blood spilled. Since the priest did not use that blood again, the service inside the Holy of Holies was completed, and that permitting factor was performed properly. He then had to slaughter another bull and goat for the other sprinklings inside the Sanctuary, which he again performed with improper intent and again the blood spilled. The same sequence repeated itself in the sprinklings on the inner altar and on the top of the altar. In this manner each permitting factor was performed properly.


###### Zevachim 42b:5
[Zevachim 42b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:5)

רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּפַר אֶחָד וְשָׂעִיר אֶחָד, לְפִיגּוּלוֹ מְרַצֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: You** may **even say** that this is a case where there is only **one bull and one goat,** as the sprinkling **effects acceptance with regard to** the offering’s status of ***piggul*.** In other words, even though the High Priest sprinkled the blood inside the Holy of Holies with an improper intention, and thereby disqualified the offering, nevertheless, since he completed the service, he is considered as having sacrificed all the permitting factors with regard to *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 42b:6
[Zevachim 42b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:6)

אַרְבָּעִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ. וְהָא תַּנְיָא אַרְבָּעִים וְשֶׁבַע! הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מְעָרְבִין לַקְּרָנוֹת, וְהָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְעָרְבִין לַקְּרָנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* mentioned that there are **forty-three** presentations of the blood of the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** otherwise in a different *baraita*, that there are **forty-seven** presentations of that blood? The Gemara answers: **This** statement, that there are forty-three presentations, **is in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that the High Priest **mixes** the blood of the bull and the goat before placing it **on the corners** of the inner altar, rather than placing the blood of each one separately. **And that** statement, that there are forty-seven presentations, **is in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that the High Priest **does not mix** the two types of blood before placing them **on the corners,** but sprinkles four times from the blood of the bull and another four times from the blood of the goat, and only afterward mixes the blood of the two animals for placement on the top of the altar.


###### Zevachim 42b:7
[Zevachim 42b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:7)

וְהָא תַּנְיָא אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה! הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty: **But isn’t it taught** in yet another *baraita* that there are **forty-eight** presentations? The Gemara answers: **This** statement, that there are forty-eight presentations, **is in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that the pouring of the **remainder** of the blood on the base of the external altar **is indispensable,** and therefore this act is added to the total. **That** statement, that there are only forty-seven presentations, **is in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that the pouring of the **remainder** of the blood **is not indispensable.**


###### Zevachim 42b:8
[Zevachim 42b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:8)

מֵיתִיבִי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּקְמִיצָה, בְּמַתַּן כְּלִי וּבְהִילּוּךְ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s understanding of Rabbi Meir’s opinion, that one cannot render an offering *piggul* with an improper intention during the performance of half a permitting factor, from a *baraita* discussing *piggul* of a meal offering, which states: **In what** case **is this statement said,** i.e., that if the priest had an improper intention during the performance of one of its services, the offering is *piggul*, despite the fact that he performed the rest of the services silently? When he had the improper intention **in the removal of the handful, or in the placement** of the handful **in** a service **vessel, or in the walking** with the handful to the altar.


###### Zevachim 42b:9
[Zevachim 42b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:9)

אֲבָל בָּא לוֹ לְהַקְטָרָה – נָתַן אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בְּמַחְשָׁבָה וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בִּשְׁתִיקָה, אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בִּשְׁתִיקָה וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if **he came to** perform **the burning** of the handful and the frankincense, and **he presented the handful** on the altar **with** an improper **intention and the frankincense** he presented **silently, or he presented the handful silently and the frankincense** he presented **with** an improper **intention, Rabbi Meir says:** The offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** consuming **it. And the Rabbis say: There is no** liablility to receive ***karet* unless** the priest had an improper intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul* during** the performance of **the entire permitting factor.**


###### Zevachim 42b:10
[Zevachim 42b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:10)

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בִּשְׁתִיקָה וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה – וּפְלִיג! אֵימָא: כְּבָר נָתַן אֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any event,** this *baraita* **teaches:** Or he presented **the handful silently and the frankincense** he presented **with** an improper **intention, and** yet Rabbi Meir **disagrees** with the ruling of the Rabbis and says that the offering is *piggul*. This indicates that the decisive factor according to Rabbi Meir is not that the priest continues his initial intent, but that one can render an offering *piggul* during the performance of half a permitting factor. The Gemara answers: **Say** and explain the *baraita* as follows: Or he presented the handful silently after **he had already presented the frankincense with** an improper **intention.** In this case the offering is *piggul* because he performed the second action with his initial intent.


###### Zevachim 42b:11
[Zevachim 42b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:11)

חֲדָא, דְּהַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא! וְעוֹד, הָא תַּנְיָא: וְאַחַר כָּךְ! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this interpretation: **One** counterclaim is **that** if this is what the *baraita* is saying, **this is** exactly the same case as **the first clause. And furthermore, isn’t it taught** explicitly in another *baraita*: **And afterward** he presented the frankincense with an improper intention. The Gemara states: Indeed, this is **difficult** for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who claims that according to Rabbi Meir one cannot render an offering *piggul* during the performance of half a permitting factor.


###### Zevachim 42b:12
[Zevachim 42b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל – הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And these are** the **items for which one is not liable** to receive *karet* **due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*.** One is liable to receive *karet* only if he partakes of an item that was permitted for consumption or for the altar by another item. As for the items listed here, either nothing else renders them permitted for consumption or for the altar, or they themselves render other items permitted. They are as follows: **The handful** of flour, which permits consumption of the meal offering; **the incense,** which is burned in its entirety, without another item rendering it permitted for the altar; **the frankincense,** which is burned together with the handful of the meal offering;