Torah Community Connections

Week 142 - Sunday - 11 August 2002

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 3

These are the things for which one is not liable on account of pigul: The kometz, the frankincense, the incense, the meal-offering of the priests, the meal-offering of the anointed priest, the meal-offering with drink-offerings, the blood, and the drink-offerings which are brought by themselves; so R. Meir. The Sages say, Also those which come with an animal. The log of oil of the leper - R. Shimon says, One is not thereby liable on account of pigul. But R. Meir says, One is thereby liable on account of pigul, since the blood of the guilt-offering renders permissible, and whatever has that which renders it permissible, whether for man or for the altar - one is thereby liable on account of pigul.

Kehati

As mentioned above (see Zev. 2:3), the law of pigul is derived from the peace-offering, thus: (Lev. 7:18): "And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offering be eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who offers it; it shall be pigul. A baraita cited in the Gemara (Zev. 44a) expounds: "Just as a peace-offering is distinguished in that it has something which permits it both for man and for the altar - the blood renders the portions (which may not be burnt before the blood has been sprinkled) permissible for the altar, and the portions permit the meat for man, for they may not be eaten before the portions have been burnt - and one is liable because of them on account of pigul, so does everything which has something that permits it, whether for man or for the altar, involve liability on account of pigul. Hence, if one of the sacrificial acts was performed with an "after-its-time" intention, i.e., one that causes pigul, the pigul affects only such things which are rendered permitted for man or for the - altar by other acts. Such is the meat which the burning of the portions render permitted for man, or the portions which the sprinkling of the blood renders fit for the altar, as explained earlier. Thus, whoever eats of these things is liable to karet on account of pigul. But such things as are not rendered permitted by other acts but themselves render others or themselves permitted, are not subject to pigul, and if one eats of these, he is not thereby liable to karet on account of pigul. Our mishnah enumerates those things which are not rendered permitted by other acts, for which one is therefore not liable to pigul.

These are the things for which one is not liable on account of pigul - i.e., ones eating of it does not incur karet:

The kometz - thus regarding the meal-offering (Lev. 2:1-3): "And when a person will offer a meal-offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour, and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests, and he shall take from it his handful of its fine flour and of its oil with all its frankincense, and the priest shall burn the memorial part of it on the altar...and the remnant of the meal-offering shall be Aaron's and his sons'." Hence the kometz - handful - renders the meal-offering permissible to the priests, since (ibid. 6:9): "And the remainder of it Aaron and his sons shall eat." A priest who took his handful with the intention of eating or burning the kometz after its prescribed time, rendered the meal-offering pigul, and he who eats thereof incurs the karet penalty. But he who eats of the actual kometz is not liable on account of pigul, since there is no factor that renders the latter fit for the altar, rather it is the kometz that renders consumable the remnant of the meal-offering (see Rash Men. 14a; Tosafot ibid.; Zev. 42b) –

the frankincense - burnt together with the kometz of the meal-offering, thus (ibid. 1:2) "and he shall take from it his handful of its fine flour and of its oil with all its frankincense", whose consumption is not punishable by karet on account of pigul, since, like kometz it has no factor that "renders it permitted",

the incense of sweet-smelling spices burnt daily on the inner altar (Ex. 30:7-8); one is not liable to pigul because of it since it is rendered permitted by itself,

the meal-offering of the priests - burnt entirely on the altar, which has no kometz that renders it fit for the altar, rather it does so by itself, thus (Lev. 6:16): "And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten," hence one is not liable to pigul for it,

the meal-offering of the anointed priest - i.e., the High Priest, who offers up daily a meal-offering, called minhat havitin (meal-offering of cakes or wafers) which (ibid.ibid. 15) "shall be wholly burnt" on the altar; this has no kometz which renders it permitted, and therefore does not entail karet,

the meal-offering with drink-offerings - the wine and the flour brought with the sacrifice (Num. 15), however, some of these are brought separately. Most commentators do not read here "the meal-offering with drink-offerings" since this constitutes further on in this mishnah a point of disagreement between R. Meir and the Sages; he who eats

the blood of a sacrifice rendered pigul, does not incur karet on account of pigul, since it is the blood that renders fit and there is no factor that thus affects the blood,

and the drink-offerings which are brought by themselves - e.g., if one vowed to bring a meal-offering with a drink-offering without a sacrifice, as mentioned above, or if he brought it in connection with a sacrifice but offered the sacrifice on one day and the meal- and drink-offering on the next, as expounded by the Sages: "and their meal-offering and their drink-offerings" - even if brought on the following day - these drink-offerings do not involve liability on account of pigul; so R. Meir who holds that only drink-offerings brought by themselves do not entail pigul, but if they accompany a sacrifice which became pigul, then the drink-offerings likewise become pigul. –

The Sages say, also those which come with an animal - also drink-offerings brought with a sacrifice which became pigul do not entail pigul, since the drink-offerings can be offered up on the next day, which demonstrates that rather than the sacrifice, it is they that render themselves permitted. The halakhah follows the Sages.

The log of oil of the leper - regarding a leper who recovered, the Torah states (Lev. 14:10-17): "And on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs...and one log of oil...and the priest shall take one he-lamb, and offer it for a guilt-offering, and the log of oil, and wave them...and the priest shall take some of the blood of the guilt-offering and put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot...and the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and put it into the palm...and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord...and of the rest of the oil that is in his hand the priest shall put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed...upon the blood of the guilt-offering";

R. Shimon says, One is not thereby - through the log of oil - liable on account of pigul - even if the sacrifice became pigul, the log of oil does not, and although the log of oil is related to the guilt-offering, thus (ibid.) "upon the blood of the guilt-offering," i.e., unless preceded by the blood of the guilt-offering the sprinkling of the oil is ineffective, nevertheless since one may bring the log several days after the guilt-offering, it is evidently not the guilt-offering which renders it permitted, and since it has no factor that renders it permitted, the log does not involve any liability on account of pigul.

But R. Meir says, One is thereby liable on account of pigul - the log of oil brought with the guilt-offering on the same day involves the liability on account of pigul if the guilt-offering became pigul (Rashi), since the blood of the guilt-offering renders it - the oil - permissible; - thus in a baraita cited in the Gemara (Zev. 44b): "Because the blood (of the guilt-offering) renders it permitted for sprinkling on the thumb of the right hand and the great toe of the right foot; accordingly, it does have a factor that renders it permitted. The halakhah does not follow R. Meir;

and whatever has that which renders it permissible, whether for man or for the altar, one is thereby liable on account of pigul as explained in the introduction to this mishnah.

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 4

The blood of the burnt-offering permits its flesh for the altar, and its skin for the priests. The blood of the burnt-offering of a bird permits its flesh for the altar. The blood of the sin-offering of a bird permits its flesh for the priests. The blood of the bullocks that are burnt and of the he-goats that are burnt permits its portions to be offered, R. Shimon says, Whatever is not on the outer altar like the peace-offering, does not involve liability on account of pigul.

Kehati

Our mishnah specifies the things which have a factor that permits them and thus involve liability on account of pigul.

The blood of the burnt-offering - wholly burnt on the altar, except for the hide, which is given to the priests, permits its flesh for the altar - thus since the sprinkling of the blood permits the flesh to be offered up on the alter, the flesh of the burnt-offering involves pigul, and its skin for the priests - before the blood sprinkling the flesh is not fit to be offered up on the altar and the priests are not entitled to the skin.

The blood of the burnt-offering of a bird - i.e., turtle-doves or young pigeons - permits its flesh for the altar - only after its blood has been wrung out may its flesh be burnt on the altar, i.e., there is a factor which renders its flesh permitted.

The blood of the sin-offering of a bird - whose flesh is eaten by the priests permits its flesh for the priests - who may eat the meat only after its blood has been wrung out at the bottom of the altar (Lev. 5:9). Hence, the flesh of a sin-offering of a bird has a factor that renders it permitted.

The blood of the bullocks that are burnt - the par kohen mashiah - bullock of the High Priests (see Hor. 2:1), the par he'alem davar - the bullock offered up on behalf of the congregation for an erroneous decision taken by the Court (ibid. 1:5), and the par Yom Hakippurim - the bullock offered up on the Day of Atonement, constitute the parim hanisrafim – the “bullocks that are burnt", whose blood is sprinkled in the inner Sanctuary, their portions are burnt on the outer altar and their flesh and skin are burnt outside Jerusalem in the bet hadeshen - place of the ashes -

and of the he-goats that are burnt - the se'ir shel Yom Hakippurim the he-goat of the Day of Atonement. and the se'ir avodah zarah - the he-goat offered up by the Court for an erroneous ruling regarding idolatry. As with the parim hanisrafim - bullocks that are burnt - their blood is sprinkled in the inner Sanctuary, their portions are burnt on the outer altar and their flesh and skin are burnt outside Jerusalem in the bet Hadeshen. In all these cases their blood permits its portions to be offered upon the altar, and hence, if one committed pigul and ate the portions, he is liable to karet on account of pigul. But if he ate their flesh he is not liable to karet as there is no factor that renders it permitted, since the flesh is in any event burnt outside the city (see Tosefot Yom Tov and Tosefot R.Akiva Eiger).

R. Shimon says, Whatever - any sacrifice whose blood is not sprinkled on the outer altar like - that of the peace-offering, does not involve liability on account of pigul - for the law of pigul is derived from the peace-offering, and just as the peace-offering is distinguished in that its blood is sprinkled on the outer altar, so does any other sacrifice whose blood is sprinkled on the outer altar involve liability on account of pigul. Not so bullocks and he-goats that are burnt, which do not involve liability on account of pigul since their blood is sprinkled on the inner altar. The halakhah does not follow R. Shimon.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives