## Zevachim Daf 44a

###### Zevachim 44a:1
[Zevachim 44a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:1)

אִם לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ חֲמוּרוֹת, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר עַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת בְּמִיתָה?! הָא מִטּוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ קָאָתְיָא, וְדַיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** the **stringent** case of impurity imparted by a corpse **were not stated,** but only the lenient case of the impurity of a creeping animal, **would I say** that the punishment in **the stringent** case is that **of death** at the hand of Heaven? **Rather,** the *halakha* in the case of impurity imparted by a corpse would be **derived from** the *halakha* in the case of **the impurity of a creeping animal** by means of an *a fortiori* inference, **and it is sufficient for** the conclusion **that emerges from** an *a fortiori* **inference to be like** its **source,** in this case that one is liable to be flogged for the violation of a prohibition, and no more.


###### Zevachim 44a:2
[Zevachim 44a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:2)

אָמַר זְעֵירִי: קַלּוֹת – טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ, חֲמוּרוֹת – טוּמְאַת מֵת. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר טוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ וְנֶאֱמַר מַעֲשֵׂר וּתְרוּמָה, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה טוּמְאַת מֵת – הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: [קַלּוֹת] עַל הַקַּלּוֹת בְּלָאו, וְעַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת בְּמִיתָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ze’eiri says:** Indeed, the **lenient** case is referring to **the impurity of a creeping animal,** and the **stringent** case is referring to **impurity** imparted by **a corpse. And this** is what the *baraita* **is saying: If the impurity of a creeping animal was stated, and it was stated** that one who eats second **tithe** while impure with such impurity has violated a prohibition **and** one who partakes of ***teruma*** in that state is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, **and the impurity** imparted by **a corpse was not stated** in this context, **I would say** as follows: The **lenient** level of impurity, that of a creeping animal, **with regard to** food with **lenient** *halakhot*, second tithe, **involves** the violation of **a prohibition, and with regard to** food with **stringent** *halakhot*, *teruma*, it involves liability to be punished **with death** at the hand of Heaven.


###### Zevachim 44a:3
[Zevachim 44a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:3)

וּמִדְּקַלּוֹת עַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת בְּמִיתָה – חֲמוּרוֹת נָמֵי עַל הַקַּלּוֹת בְּמִיתָה; לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרוּ חֲמוּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ze’eiri continues his explanation of the *baraita*: **And from** the fact **that** the **lenient** level of impurity, that of a creeping animal, **with regard to** food with **stringent** *halakhot*, *teruma*, involves liability to be punished **with death** at the hand of Heaven, it may be inferred that **also** in the analogous case of the **stringent** level of impurity, imparted by a corpse, **with regard to** food with **lenient** *halakhot*, there is liability to be punished **with death** at the hand of Heaven. **Therefore, the stringent** level of impurity, imparted by a corpse, **was stated** with regard to second tithe, which has lenient *halakhot*, to teach that even if one contracted impurity from a corpse, he has violated only a prohibition for eating second tithe, and is not liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven.


###### Zevachim 44a:4
[Zevachim 44a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:4)

כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, בֵּין לְאָדָם בֵּין לְמִזְבֵּחַ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to **any** item **that has permitting factors, either for** consumption by **a person or for** burning on **the altar, one is liable for** eating **it due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*.** The Gemara cites a verse and a related *baraita*. The verse states: “And if any be at all eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who sacrifices it; it shall be *piggul*, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18). The *baraita* first demonstrates that the *halakha* of *piggul* applies not only to a peace offering, with regard to which it is stated in the Torah, but to all offerings.


###### Zevachim 44a:5
[Zevachim 44a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹ אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים מְיוּחָדִים – נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, אַף כֹּל נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **Or perhaps** the *halakha* of *piggul* **extends only to** an offering that is **similar to peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are notable** in that **they are eaten for two days and one night, so too,** the *halakha* of *piggul* applies to **any** offering that is **eaten for two days and one night.**


###### Zevachim 44a:6
[Zevachim 44a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:6)

נֶאֱכָל לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִבְּשַׂר״ – כֹּל (שֶׁשִּׁירִין) [שֶׁשְּׁיָרָיו] נֶאֱכָלִין. עוֹלָה שֶׁאֵין שְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֶבַח״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But as for an offering that **is eaten** only **for one day,** i.e., the day the offering is sacrificed, **and** the following **night,** e.g., a sin offering, guilt offering, and firstborn offering, **from where** is it derived that the *halakha* of *piggul* applies to this offering as well? The verse states: **“Of the flesh** of the sacrifice of his peace offering,” which teaches that the status of *piggul* can apply to **any** offering **whose remainder** of meat **is eaten** after its sacrificial portions have been offered on the altar. The *baraita* asks: With regard to **a burnt offering, whose remainder** of meat **is not eaten,** as it is burned in its entirety on the altar, **from where** is this *halakha* derived? **The verse states: “Sacrifice,”** which includes any offering that is slaughtered.


###### Zevachim 44a:7
[Zevachim 44a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:7)

מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הָעוֹפוֹת וְהַמְּנָחוֹת, עַד שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּישִׁים לִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **From where** is it derived **to include bird** offerings, e.g., doves or pigeons, which are not slaughtered but whose napes of their necks are pinched, **and meal offerings, until I include** even the ***log* of oil** that accompanies the guilt offering **of** a recovered **leper? The verse states** with regard to the consumption of consecrated food in a state of ritual purity: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, **which they consecrate to Me,** and that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2).


###### Zevachim 44a:8
[Zevachim 44a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:8)

וְאָתֵי נוֹתָר ״חִילּוּל״–״חִילּוּל״ מִטּוּמְאָה, וְאָתֵי פִּיגּוּל ״עָוֹן״–״עָוֹן״ מִנּוֹתָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* clarifies this derivation: The *halakha* that the prohibition of ***notar*** applies to all these offerings is **derived** through a verbal analogy of **profanation** in the context of *notar*: “And if anything remains until the third day, it shall be burned in fire…and anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord” (Leviticus 19:6–8), and **profanation** stated in the verse discussing **ritual impurity:** “And that they do not profane My holy name.” **And** the *halakha* that ***piggul*** applies to all these offerings is subsequently **derived** through a verbal analogy of **“iniquity”** in the context of *piggul* and **“iniquity”** stated in the verse discussing ***notar*.** With regard to *piggul*, the verse states: “It shall be *piggul*, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to *notar*, it is stated in the aforementioned verse: “And anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity.”


###### Zevachim 44a:9
[Zevachim 44a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:9)

וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר שְׁלָמִים מֵעַתָּה? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה שְׁלָמִים מְיוּחָדִים – שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַתִּירִין בֵּין לָאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין בֵּין לָאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **And since** the verse **eventually includes all items,** even meal offerings and the *log* of oil of a leper, **now** one can ask: **Why does** the verse **state** *piggul* specifically with regard to **peace offerings?** The *baraita* answers: This serves **to tell you** that the offering must be similar to peace offerings in the following way: **Just as peace offerings are notable** in **that they have permitting factors, either for** consumption by **a person or for** burning on **the altar, so too,** with regard to **any** item **that has permitting factors, either for a person or for the altar, one is liable for** eating **it due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*.**


###### Zevachim 44a:10
[Zevachim 44a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:10)

הָעוֹלָה – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְעוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. עוֹלַת הָעוֹף – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים – דָּמָם מַתִּיר אֶת אֵימוּרֵיהֶן לִיקְרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* specifies: With regard to **the burnt offering, its blood renders its flesh permitted to** be burned on **the altar and its hide** to be used **by the priests.** With regard to **the bird burnt offering, its blood renders its flesh** and its skin **permitted to** be burned on **the altar.** With regard to **the bird sin offering, its blood renders its flesh permitted for** consumption by **the priests.** With regard to **bulls that are burned,** e.g., the bull sacrificed for an unwitting communal transgression, **and goats that are burned,** e.g., the goat sacrificed for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, **their blood renders their sacrificial portions permitted to be sacrificed** on the altar.


###### Zevachim 44a:11
[Zevachim 44a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:11)

וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, וְהַדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And I exclude,** via the analogy to peace offerings, **the handful** of a meal offering, **the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of** the **anointed priest, the meal offering** brought with the **libations** that accompany animal offerings, **and the blood.** All these do not have an item that renders them permitted either for a person or for the altar.


###### Zevachim 44a:12
[Zevachim 44a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:12)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מָה שְׁלָמִים מְיוּחָדִין – שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, אַף כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָן עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל. יָצְאוּ פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, הוֹאִיל שֶׁאֵין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן כִּשְׁלָמִים – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: **Rabbi Shimon says** that the fact that the verse specifies peace offerings as the standard case of *piggul* teaches: **Just as peace offerings are notable** in **that they have** a permitting factor that is sacrificed **on the external altar,** i.e., their blood, **and one is liable for** eating **them** due to violation of the prohibition of *piggul*, **so too,** with regard to **any** item **that** has a permitting factor that **is** sacrificed **on the external altar, one is liable for** eating **it due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*.** This serves to **exclude bulls that are burned and goats that are burned: Since** their blood is **not** presented **on the external altar like peace offerings, one is not liable for** eating **them due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*.**


###### Zevachim 44a:13
[Zevachim 44a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:13)

אָמַר [מָר]: כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁלָמִים. מַאי נִיהוּ? בְּכוֹר, דְּנֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד. בְּמַאי אָתֵי? אִי בְּמָה מָצִינוּ – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*. **The Master said:** Perhaps the *halakha* of *piggul* extends only to an offering that is **similar to peace offerings: What is this** offering that is similar to a peace offering but not included in the category of peace offerings? The Gemara answers: The reference is to **a firstborn** offering, **which is eaten for two days and one night,** as is a peace offering. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **By what** hermeneutical principle **is** the *halakha* of the firstborn offering **derived? If** it is **by** the hermeneutical principle of: **What do we find** with regard to, a principle of inductive reasoning involving a comparison between cases that include similar details, i.e., since the peace offering and firstborn offering are similar with regard to the time designated for their eating, *piggul* status should apply to each, this **can be refuted.**


###### Zevachim 44a:14
[Zevachim 44a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:14)

מָה לִשְׁלָמִים – שֶׁהֵן טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים, וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the refutation: **What** is notable **about peace offerings?** They are notable in **that they require placing hands** on the head of the offering, **libations, and waving of the breast and thigh.** None of these apply in the case of a firstborn offering.


###### Zevachim 44a:15
[Zevachim 44a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:15)

אֶלָּא מֵ״אִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *halakha* that *piggul* status applies to a firstborn offering is derived through the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, **from** the following verse: **“And if any be at all eaten** of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings on the third day, it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 7:18). The terms: “And if any” and “be at all eaten” are generalizations, while the words: “The flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering” constitute a detail. According to the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, in such a case one includes any item that is similar to the detail, and therefore one includes the firstborn offering.


###### Zevachim 44a:16
[Zevachim 44a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:16)

הָנֵי תְּרֵי כְּלָלֵי דִּסְמִיכִי אַהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ! אָמַר רָבָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי כְּלָלוֹת הַסְּמוּכִים זֶה לָזֶה, הַטֵּל פְּרָט בֵּינֵיהֶם וְדוּנֵם בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **These two** phrases **are generalizations that are adjacent to one another,** which means that this is not an instance of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, as they are not in that order. **Rava said:** The hermeneutical principle applies even in this case, **as they say in the West,** Eretz Yisrael: In **every place that you find two generalizations that are adjacent to one another, cast** the **detail** that is written afterward **between them, and interpret them in** the manner of **a generalization and a detail** and a generalization. Consequently, this verse is considered to state a generalization and a detail and a generalization.


###### Zevachim 44a:17
[Zevachim 44a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:17)

עַד שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע. הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי מִנְחַת נְסָכִים וְהַדָּם – אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* teaches: **Until I include** even **the *log* of oil of a leper.** The Gemara asks: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** ruling? The Gemara answers that **it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the ***log* of oil of the leper, one is liable for** consuming **it due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*,** if the guilt offering that this oil accompanied became *piggul*; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Say the latter clause: And I exclude the meal offering** brought with the **libations** that accompany animal offerings, **and the blood,** as they do not have a permitting factor. Here **we arrive at** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.


###### Zevachim 44a:18
[Zevachim 44a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:18)

דְּתַנְיָא: נִסְכֵי בְהֵמָה – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּם הַזֶּבַח מַתִּירָן לִיקָרֵב. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא אָדָם מֵבִיא אֶת זְבָחָיו הַיּוֹם, וּנְסָכִין מִיכָּן עַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים! אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי, אֶלָּא בְּבָאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **As it is taught** in another *baraita*: With regard to the **libations of an animal** offering, **one is liable for** consuming **them due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*, as the blood of the offering renders them permitted to be offered** on the altar; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** The Rabbis **said to him: But a person** may **bring his offerings today and** the accompanying **libations from now until** even **ten days** later. Evidently, then, the blood of the offering does not render the libations permitted. Rabbi Meir **said to them: I too spoke only about** libations that **come** to be sacrificed together **with the offering.** If so, the *baraita* under discussion represents two conflicting opinions.


###### Zevachim 44a:19
[Zevachim 44a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:19)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – מַתְּנוֹתָיו שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ; וּמִדְּמַתְּנוֹתָיו שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ – מַתְּנוֹתָיו מְפַגְּלִי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** ruling, that even the *log* of oil of a leper is included in the prohibition of *piggul*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **who** agrees with the Rabbis that the libations of an animal offering are not permitted by the blood of the offering. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **says** with regard to the ***log* of oil of a leper** that it is not the blood of the guilt offering that renders it permitted; rather, the **placements of its** oil “before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:16) **render** the remainder of the oil **permitted** to be eaten by the priests. **And from** the fact **that** the **placements of its** oil **render** the oil **permitted,** by the same token the **placements of its** oil **render it *piggul*,** i.e., if the oil was placed with the intent that the priests should consume its remainder on the following day, one who consumes the oil is liable for consuming *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 44a:20
[Zevachim 44a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:20)

דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, עַד שֶׁיִּזְרוֹק הַדָּם. נִזְרַק הַדָּם – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the source for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the ***log* of oil of a leper,** one who derives benefit **from it** is liable for **misusing** consecrated property if he derives benefit from it at any point after it has been consecrated in a service vessel, **until the blood** of the leper’s guilt offering **is sprinkled.** At this stage the oil is permitted to the priests, and therefore the prohibition against misusing property consecrated to the Temple no longer applies to it. Once **the blood has been sprinkled, one may not derive benefit** from the oil *ab initio*, by rabbinic law, as it must still be placed on the leper’s right ear, thumb, and big toe. **But** if one derived benefit from it, he is **not** liable for **misuse.**


###### Zevachim 44a:21
[Zevachim 44a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:21)

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין, עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מַתְּנוֹתָיו. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מַתַּן שֶׁבַע וּמַתַּן בְּהוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** One who derives benefit from the oil is liable for **misusing** consecrated property **until** the priest **places its** own **placements,** i.e., until the oil is sprinkled seven times toward the Sanctuary, as these sprinklings render the remainder of the oil permitted to the priests. **And** the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **agree that consumption** of the *log* of oil is **prohibited until** the priest **places the seven placements,** i.e., sprinklings, of oil toward the Sanctuary, **and** performs the **placing** of the oil **on the** leper’s **thumb and big toe.**


###### Zevachim 44a:22
[Zevachim 44a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/44a:22)

אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, אָמַר: גַּבְרָא רַבָּא כְּרַב יוֹסֵף, לֵימָא כִּי הָא מִילְּתָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They said this** statement **before Rabbi Yirmeya** in Eretz Yisrael, whereupon **he said:** Would **a great man such as Rav Yosef say such a matter,** that the sprinkling of the oil renders the rest of the oil *piggul*?