[to consume it] without bounds, it is invalid, but does not involve kareth; (1) [if he intended consuming it] after time, it is invalid, and entails kareth. [If he intended sprinkling the blood in the wrong place] on the morrow, it is invalid; if he subsequently intended [to consume it] without bounds or after time, it is invalid, and does not involve kareth. (2) Now if you say that [blood] not [applied] in its [proper] place [on the altar] is as [though applied] in its [proper] place, is this [merely] invalid? Surely it is piggul! (3) — Said Mar Zutra: Sprinkling which permits the consumption of the flesh can render [it] Piggul; sprinkling which does not permit the consumption of the flesh (4) does not render [it] piggul. (5) R. Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Whence do you know this? [Assuredly] because it is written, And if any of the flesh of his peaceofferings be at all eaten on the third day... it shall be Piggul [an abhorred thing, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity:] (6) [thus kareth is incurred] only where Piggul causes [the prohibition of the flesh], which excludes this case, (7) where not Piggul causes it but a different interdict is the cause. If so, (8) it should not be disqualified either? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: It is analogous to the intention of leaving [the blood] until the morrow, this being in accordance with R. Judah. (9) Resh Lakish said: In truth, [the Mishnah means] UNFIT literally. (10) and [blood] not [applied] in its [proper] place is as [though applied in] its [proper] place, (11) yet there is no difficulty: (12) in one case he applied it in silence; in the other he applied it with an expressed intention. (13) We learnt: If he intended applying above [the line] what should be applied below [it], or below what should be applied above [etc.] as far as ‘It is analogous to the intention of leaving [the blood] until the morrow, this being in accordance with R.Judah.’ (14) R. Johanan said: Both cases (15) are where he sprinkles it in silence, and the wrong place is not as the right place; but the one is where life-blood is [still] available, while the other is where life-blood is not available. We learnt: IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. As for Resh Lakish, it is well: he rightly teaches. IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. (16) But according to R. Johanan, why teach that it DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH? (17) This is a difficulty. And according to Samuel, what is meant by IT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH? (18) — This is what [the Tanna] means: If he sprinkled [it thus] with an [illegitimate] intention, IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. Now as for R. Johanan, if the wrong place [on the altar] is not as the right place, (19) let it be as though [the blood] had been spilt from the [service] vessel on to the pavement, and so let him collect it? (20) — He agrees with the view that it must not be gathered. For R. Isaac b. Joseph said in R. Johanan's name: All agree, if [the priest] sprinkled the blood above which should be sprinkled above, or below which should be sprinkled below, but not in accordance with the regulations. (21) that he must not re-gather it. (22) They disagree only where he sprinkled below what should be sprinkled above, or above what should be sprinkled below: there R. Jose holds, He must not re-gather it; while R. Simeon maintains, He must re-gather it;

---

(1). ↑ For eating it.
(2). ↑ Since it was already invalid through the first, a second illegitimate intention does not render it Piggul.
(3). ↑ How can you say that if he intended applying it in the wrong place on the morrow it is only invalid? On the present hypothesis it is the same as though he had intended applying it in the right place on the morrow, and that should render it Piggul. For the sprinkling of the blood on the altar constitutes, as it were, the altar's consumption, and just as an intention to consume the flesh after time makes it Piggul, so should a similar intention to sprinkle the blood make it Piggul!
(4). ↑ Where the blood is not sprinkled in its proper place.
(5). ↑ And, as Samuel stated, if the blood is not sprinkled on the proper place on the altar the flesh may not be eaten, though the sacrifice has made atonement.
(6). ↑ Lev. VII, 18; ‘shall bear his iniquity’ implies kareth.
(7). ↑ Sc. where the blood is not sprinkled in the proper place.
(8). ↑ That it does not constitute sprinkling in respect of an illegitimate intention.
(9). ↑ Who holds that the sacrifice then becomes invalid (infra 36a). In intending to sprinkle the blood in the wrong place on the morrow, he has also tacitly expressed his intention of leaving the blood until the morrow.
(10). ↑ Not only is the flesh unfit, but the whole sacrifice is invalid. He thus disagrees with Samuel.
(11). ↑ In this he agrees with Samuel.
(12). ↑ Caused by the text quoted by Samuel.
(13). ↑ The text adduced by Samuel, which intimates that the owners are forgiven, holds good where the priest sprinkled the blood in the wrong place, with no unlawful intention attending the sprinkling. While the Mishnah which states UNFIT, implying that the owners are not forgiven either, holds good where in addition to sprinkling it in the wrong place he intended consuming the flesh after time; and the Mishnah thus teaches that in such a case the sacrifice is unfit, but not Piggul, since the sprinkling which was not in its proper place did not permit the consumption of the flesh.
(14). ↑ All the objections raised against Samuel are raised against Resh Lakish, since he too holds that the wrong place is as the right place.
(15). ↑ Our Mishnah which simply states that it is unfit, and the Mishnah in the next chapter, quoted supra 26b, which teaches that the blood must be re-sprinkled.
(16). ↑ He explains the Mishnah as referring to one who expressed an illegitimate intention. Therefore the Tanna must teach that kareth is not incurred in spite of this illegitimate intention.
(17). ↑ It is obvious that he does not incur kareth simply for sprinkling the blood in a wrong place.
(18). ↑ For he too explains the Mishnah as referring to where the priest is silent.
(19). ↑ So that it does not count as sprinkling at all.
(20). ↑ And re-sprinkle.
(21). ↑ E.g., with his left hand or with an illegitimate intention.
(22). ↑ For re-sprinkling. For since it was sprinkled in the proper place, there can be no further sprinkling