## Zevachim Daf 82a

###### Zevachim 82a:1
[Zevachim 82a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:1)

וְנִיתֵּיב לְפָנִים וַהֲדַר נִיתֵּיב לַחוּץ? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם דְּכִי נִכְנַס דָּמָן פְּסוּלִין, לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if you suggest that the priest **should** first **place** blood from the mixture **inside** the Sanctuary **and again place** blood **outside,** on the altar, although this resolution is applicable to most offerings whose blood is placed outside, nevertheless the *tanna* of the mishna chose to omit this case. The reason is that **since there are a sin offering and a guilt offering,** concerning **which,** according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, **when their blood enters** the Sanctuary **they are disqualified** from being placed on the external altar, the *tanna* could **not** teach this *halakha* **categorically.** In other words, as the *tanna* could not issue a categorical ruling that applies to all types of offerings, he omitted the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer here.


###### Zevachim 82a:2
[Zevachim 82a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:2)

שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁמָּזַג לְרַבּוֹ בְּחַמִּין, וְאָמַר לוֹ: מְזוֹג לִי. אָמַר לוֹ: בַּמֶּה? אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא בְּחַמִּין אָנוּ עֲסוּקִין עַכְשָׁיו?! בֵּין בְּחַמִּין בֵּין בְּצוֹנֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches **that Rabbi Akiva would say:** Any blood that is to be presented outside that entered to atone in the Sanctuary is disqualified. The Gemara discusses the source for Rabbi Akiva’s ruling. The verse states: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). How does Rabbi Akiva apply this *halakha* to all offerings whose blood is presented on the external altar? **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** Hear **a parable: To what is this matter comparable? To a student who mixed** wine **with hot water for his teacher. And** the teacher **said to him: Mix** another drink **for me.** The student **said to him: With what** should I mix the wine, hot or cold water? The teacher **said to him: Aren’t we dealing with hot** water? **Now** that I requested that you mix me another cup, I mean that you should mix it **either in hot** water **or in cold.** Otherwise, the teacher would not have needed to say anything.


###### Zevachim 82a:3
[Zevachim 82a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:3)

הָכָא נָמֵי – מִכְּדִי בְּחַטָּאת עָסְקִינַן וְאָתֵי, ״חַטָּאת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא לָאו חַטָּאת קָאָמֵינָא לַהּ, אֶלָּא כׇּל קָדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Here too, since we have been dealing with a sin offering** in that passage (see Leviticus 6:17–22), **why do I** need the term **“sin offering” that the Merciful One writes** in this verse? Even without this term it is clear that the Torah is referring to a sin offering. **Rather,** as in the parable, the Torah mentions a sin offering to teach: **I do not say this** *halakha* with regard to **a sin offering** alone, i.e., that only the blood of a sin offering is disqualified when it is brought inside the Sanctuary, **but** the blood of **all sacrificial** animals is disqualified by being brought into the Sanctuary.


###### Zevachim 82a:4
[Zevachim 82a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִכְּדֵי אִיתְרַבּוֹ כׇּל קָדָשִׁים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ לְעִנְיַן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, ״חַטָּאת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חַטָּאת אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, objects to this** explanation: Accordingly, one should reach the opposite conclusion: **Since all sacrificial** animals that are sacrificed **on the altar are included** in this passage of the Torah **with regard to scouring and rinsing,** as derived by the Sages, despite the fact that this requirement is stated in connection with a sin offering (see Leviticus 6:21), it is already established that this chapter is speaking of all offerings. Consequently, **why do I** need the term **“sin offering” that the Merciful One writes** with regard to the matter of blood that entered the Sanctuary? **Learn from** the verse that in the case of **a sin offering** whose blood entered the Sanctuary, **yes,** it is disqualified, but if the blood of any **other** offering entered the Sanctuary, **no,** it is not disqualified.


###### Zevachim 82a:5
[Zevachim 82a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:5)

וְהָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁמָּזַג לְרַבּוֹ בֵּין בְּחַמִּין בֵּין בְּצוֹנֵן, אָמַר לוֹ: אַל תִּמְזוֹג לִי אֶלָּא חַמִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna addresses Shmuel’s parable: **And** if you wish to provide a comparison, it **is comparable only to a student who** initially **mixed** wine **for his teacher with both hot and cold** water, and **his teacher** then **said to him: Mix** wine **for me only** with **hot** water.


###### Zevachim 82a:6
[Zevachim 82a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:6)

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵ״חַטָּאת״ ״וְכׇל חַטָּאת״; דְּתַנְיָא: ״חַטָּאת״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת; קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל חַטָּאת״. קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל חַטָּאת״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna continues: **Rather, the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva** is **from** the fact that the verse does not state simply: **“Sin offering,” but** states: **“Any sin offering”;** this serves to include all other offerings. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And any **sin offering,** whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). **I have** derived that this *halakha* applies **only** with regard to **a sin offering; from where** is it derived that it also applies to **offerings of the most sacred order? The verse states: “Any sin offering.” And from where** is it derived that it also applies to **offerings of lesser sanctity? The verse states: “And any sin offering.”** This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Zevachim 82a:7
[Zevachim 82a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:7)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: אֲפִילּוּ אַתָּה מְרַבֶּה כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, אֵינִי שׁוֹמֵעַ לְךָ אֶלָּא חַטָּאת. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטַּאת יָחִיד, חַטַּאת צִבּוּר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל חַטָּאת״. וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת זָכָר, חַטָּאת נְקֵבָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to** Rabbi Akiva: **Even** if **you include** offerings in this manner from the verse **all day long, I** will **not listen to you. Rather,** this verse is referring to a sin offering alone, and it should be expounded as follows: The verse states: **“Sin offering”; I have** derived **only** that this *halakha* applies to **the sin offering of an individual. From where** is it derived that the same applies to **a communal sin offering? The verse states: “Any sin offering.” And** one can still say: **I have** derived **only** that this *halakha* applies to **a male sin offering; from where** is it derived that the same applies to **a female sin offering? The verse states: “And any** sin offering.”


###### Zevachim 82a:8
[Zevachim 82a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:8)

כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא? אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת נְקֵבָה, חַטָּאת זָכָר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל חַטָּאת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why is it assumed that the application of this *halakha* to a male sin offering is more obvious than to a female sin offering? **Isn’t it the opposite [*kelapei layya*],** as the standard sin offering of an individual is a female? **Rather, this** is what Rabbi Yosei HaGelili **is saying:** One can still ask: **I have** derived **only** that this *halakha* applies to **a female sin offering; from where** is it derived that the same applies to **a male sin offering? The verse states: “And any sin offering.”**


###### Zevachim 82a:9
[Zevachim 82a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:9)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: הַאי קְרָא לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: (לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ) כׇּל הָעִנְיָן כּוּלּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili hold** that **this verse comes for this** purpose, to teach the *halakha* of sin offerings whose blood was brought inside the Sanctuary? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: As we have found the entire matter** that is stated in the verse: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 6:23), is not stated with regard to a standard sin offering improperly brought inside the Sanctuary; rather, it **speaks only about bulls that are burned and goats that are burned.**


###### Zevachim 82a:10
[Zevachim 82a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:10)

לִשְׂרוֹף פְּסוּלֵיהֶן אַבֵּית הַבִּירָה, וְלַעֲמוֹד בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili elaborates: These are unique sin offerings, and the Torah states that their blood should be brought inside the Sanctuary. The verse is stated with regard to these sin offerings both in order to command the Jewish people **to burn their disqualified ones in the Temple and** in order **to establish a prohibition with regard to their consumption.**


###### Zevachim 82a:11
[Zevachim 82a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:11)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – מִנַּיִן? אָמַר לָהֶם: ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If you expound the verse in this fashion, then **from where** is it derived that a standard **sin offering whose blood entered the innermost sanctum,** the Holy of Holies, must be burned? Rabbi Yosei HaGelili **said to them** that it is derived from the verse: **“Behold, its blood was not brought** into the Sanctuary within” (Leviticus 10:18). This indicates that had the sin offering referred to in the verse been brought inside the Sanctuary, it should have been burned. In any event, with regard to the issue at hand, since Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interprets the verse from Leviticus 6:23 in this manner, how can he interpret it differently in his dispute with Rabbi Akiva?


###### Zevachim 82a:12
[Zevachim 82a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:12)

לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili **spoke according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva,** i.e., although Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interprets the verse in a different manner, according to Rabbi Akiva’s explanation it should be understood as referring only to a sin offering, not to other offerings.


###### Zevachim 82a:13
[Zevachim 82a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** חַטָּאת שֶׁקִּבֵּל דָּמָה בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת, יָצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן לַחוּץ – הַפְּנִימִי כָּשֵׁר. נִכְנַס אֶחָד מֵהֶם לִפְנִים – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מַכְשִׁיר בַּחִיצוֹן, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **a sin offering** whose blood placement is on the external altar **whose blood** the priest **collected in two cups,** if **one of them left** the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified, **the** cup that remained **inside** the courtyard is **fit** to be presented. If **one of the** cups **entered inside** the Sanctuary and was thereby disqualified, **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili deems** the blood **in the** cup that remained **outside** the Sanctuary, in the courtyard, **fit** to be presented, **and the Rabbis deem it disqualified** from being presented.


###### Zevachim 82a:14
[Zevachim 82a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: מָה אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהַמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּחוּץ – לֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הַמְשׁוּיָּר כַּיּוֹצֵא, מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בִּפְנִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַמְשׁוּיָּר כַּנִּכְנָס?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said** in support of his opinion: The *halakha* is that if one slaughters an offering with the intent that its blood be presented outside of the Temple courtyard, the offering is disqualified, but if his intention was that the blood be presented inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not disqualified. **Just as in** a case where part of the blood reached **a place where the intent** to present the blood there **disqualifies** the offering, i.e., **outside** the Temple courtyard, and yet when some of the blood is taken there it **does not render the** status of the **remaining** blood disqualified **like** that of blood that **leaves** the courtyard, so too, in a case where part of the blood reached **a place where the intent** to present the blood there **does not disqualify** the offering, i.e., **inside** the Sanctuary, **is it not logical that we will not deem** the status of **the remaining** blood **like** that of blood that **entered** the Sanctuary?


###### Zevachim 82a:15
[Zevachim 82a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:15)

נִכְנַס לְכַפֵּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כִּפֵּר – פָּסוּל. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיְּכַפֵּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הִכְנִיס שׁוֹגֵג – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: If all of the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar **entered** the Sanctuary **to atone** through sprinkling, **despite** the fact **that** the priest **did not** actually sprinkle the blood to **atone,** the offering is **disqualified;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon says:** The offering is disqualified **only when he atones** and sprinkles the blood in the Sanctuary. **Rabbi Yehuda says: If he took** the blood **into** the Sanctuary **unwittingly,** the blood remains **fit** to be presented.


###### Zevachim 82a:16
[Zevachim 82a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:16)

כָּל הַדָּמִים פְּסוּלִין שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא הִרְצָה הַצִּיץ אֶלָּא עַל הַטָּמֵא. שֶׁהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַטָּמֵא, וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַיּוֹצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **all the blood disqualified** for presentation **that was placed on the altar, the frontplate effects acceptance only** for offerings sacrificed **that** are **ritually impure.** Although it is written with regard to the frontplate worn on the forehead of the High Priest: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the sacred matters” (Exodus 28:38), this does not apply to all disqualifications of offerings. This is **because the frontplate effects acceptance for** offerings sacrificed **that** are **ritually impure but does not effect acceptance for** offerings **that leave** the courtyard.


###### Zevachim 82a:17
[Zevachim 82a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:17)

**גְּמָ׳** תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בַּחוּץ – לֹא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים; מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בִּפְנִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִפְסוֹל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and the Rabbis as to whether the blood of a sin offering in a second cup is disqualified if the blood in the first cup entered the Sanctuary, it **is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said:** This is **an *a fortiori*** inference: **And just as in** a case where part of the blood reached **a place where** the **intent** to present the blood there **disqualifies** the offering, i.e., **outside** the Temple courtyard, and yet that **blood that** was taken **outside does not disqualify** the blood that is still **inside** the courtyard, so too, in a case where part of the blood reached **a place where** the **intent** to present the blood there **does not disqualify** the offering, i.e., **inside** the Sanctuary, **is it not logical that** the **blood that** was taken **inside will not disqualify** the blood **that** is still **outside** the Sanctuary?


###### Zevachim 82a:18
[Zevachim 82a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:18)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ״ – אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת דָּמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: **But** the verse **states:** “And any sin offering, **whereof any of the blood is brought** into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). This indicates that **even** if **part of its blood** is brought inside the Sanctuary, the sin offering is disqualified.


###### Zevachim 82a:19
[Zevachim 82a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:19)

אָמַר לָהֶם, קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַיּוֹצֵא מֵעַתָּה: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בִּפְנִים – פּוֹסֵל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ; מְקוֹם שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בַּחוּץ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּפְסוֹל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili **said to** the Rabbis: If you expound the verse in that manner, then **from now** one can derive **an *a fortiori*** inference **with regard to the** blood that **leaves** the courtyard: **And just as in** a case where part of the blood reached **a place where** the **intent** to present the blood there **does not disqualify** the offering, i.e., **inside** the Sanctuary, the **blood that** was taken **inside disqualifies** the blood that is still **outside,** i.e., in the courtyard, so too, in a case where part of the blood reached **a place where** the **intent** to present the blood there **disqualifies** the offering, i.e., **outside** the Temple courtyard, **is it not logical that** the **blood that** was taken **outside will disqualify** the blood **that** is still **inside** the courtyard? Why do the Rabbis deem this blood fit?


###### Zevachim 82a:20
[Zevachim 82a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:20)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא״ – הַנִּכְנָס פּוֹסֵל וְאֵין הַיּוֹצֵא פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yosei HaGelili in response: **But** the verse **states:** “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood **is brought** into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). This teaches that only blood **that enters** the Sanctuary **disqualifies** the blood in the courtyard, **but** the blood **that leaves** the courtyard **does not disqualify** the blood in the courtyard.


###### Zevachim 82a:21
[Zevachim 82a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:21)

וּתְהֵא מַחְשָׁבָה בִּפְנִים פּוֹסֶלֶת מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים – מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּחוּץ, מְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בִּפְנִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In light of this discussion, the Gemara asks: **And let intent** to present the blood **inside** the Sanctuary **disqualify** the offering **based on an *a fortiori*** inference: **And just as in a place where** the part of the **blood that** went **outside does not disqualify** the rest of the blood **that is inside** the courtyard, and yet **intent** to present the blood in this place **disqualifies** the offering, i.e., **outside** the courtyard, so too, in **a place where** the part of the **blood that** went **inside** the Sanctuary **disqualifies** the rest of the blood **that is outside** the Sanctuary, in the courtyard, **is it not logical that intent** to present the blood in this place **will disqualify** the offering, i.e., **inside** the courtyard?


###### Zevachim 82a:22
[Zevachim 82a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82a:22)

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that one does not derive this *a fortiori* inference, as the verse **states:** “And if it be eaten at all **on the third day,** it is *piggul*; it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 19:7), and the Sages expounded this verse with regard to the *halakha* of intent while slaughtering an offering.