— if it is superfluous in respect of after time, apply it to out of bounds. (1) and the Divine Law expresses a limitation in connection with nothar: (2) But every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, which excludes [eating or intending to eat] out of bounds. Yet say that ‘but every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity’ refers to out of bounds, and thus excludes nothar from kareth? — It is logical that nothar must be made to involve kareth, so that the meaning of ‘iniquity’, where it refers to [the intention of] eating after time, may be learned by analogy, since it is similar thereto in respect of Zab. (3) On the contrary, [eating] without bounds should be made to involve kareth, so that the meaning of ‘iniquity’, where it refers to [the intention of] eating after time, may be learned by analogy, since it is similar thereto in respect of Mikdash? (4) Rather said R. Johanan, Zabdi b. Levi taught: Kodesh is learned from Kodesh. Here is written, Because he hath profaned the Kodesh [holy thing] of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from the people; (5) and it is written elsewhere, [And if ought of the flesh of the consecration, or of the bread, remain unto the morning,] then thou shalt burn the nothar [remainder] with fire,’ it shall not be eaten, because it is Kodesh [holy]: (6) just as there, [Kodesh is connected with] nothar, so here too [it is connected with] nothar, and the Divine Law expresses a limitation in connection with nothar: But every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, which excludes without bounds from kareth. And why do you interpret the long text (7) as referring to after time, and ‘third’ in the pericope ‘Ye shall be holy’ as referring to without bounds; perhaps I may reverse it? (8) — It is logical that the long text refers to after time, since the meaning of ‘iniquity’ is learned by analogy from nothar, and [after time] is similar thereto in respect of Zab. On the contrary, [say that ] the long text refers to without bounds, and ‘third’ in ‘Ye shall be holy’ refers to after time: because it is similar thereto [Scripture] places it close by and excludes it? (9) — Rather said Raba: The whole is deduced from the long text. For it is written, ‘[But if any of the flesh be] at all eaten’: (10) Scripture refers to two eatings, viz., eating by man and eating by the altar. (11) ‘Of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings’: as [parts of] the peaceofferings render Piggul, and parts are rendered Piggul, so [in sacrifices where there are parts which] render Piggul and [parts which] are made Piggul [the law of Piggul applies]. (12) ‘Third’ means after time. ‘It shall not be accepted’: as the acceptance of the valid [sacrifice], so is the acceptance of the invalid. And as the acceptance of the valid necessitates that all its mattirin be offered, so does the acceptance of the invalid necessitate that all its mattirin be offered. (13) ‘Him that offereth’: it becomes unfit in offering, but does not become unfit through [being eaten on] the third [day]. (14) ‘It’: Scripture speaks of the sacrifice, and not of the priest. (15) ‘It shall not be imputed’:

---

(1). ↑ While Piggul mentioned in Lev. VII, 18 will definitely refer to the intention of eating after time, to which the whole verse is now understood to refer.
(2). ↑ V. Glos.
(3). ↑ Zab is a mnemonic, standing for zeman, (time) and bamah, (high place). — In both texts, viz., Lev. VII, (18) and Lev. XIX, (8) Scripture states that he who eats it ‘shall bear his iniquity’; the meaning of ‘iniquity is further clarified in the latter text by the addition, ‘and that soul shall be cut off from his people’, i.e., kareth. Now, on the present exegesis this latter verse may refer either to nothar or to eating without bounds, while the former text (Lev. VII, 18) definitely refers to the eating of the flesh before it is actually nothar and within bounds, after the illegitimate intention of eating it after time. Now, if the punishment of kareth in Lev. XIX, (8) is made to refer to nothar (owing to the word ‘it’ it can only refer to one), then we can argue that ‘iniquity’ in VII, (18) too means kareth, by analogy with ‘iniquity’ in Lev. XIX, 8. And the reason for drawing this analogy is that the two are alike in two respects: (i) Both are defects arising through time, nothar being the case where he actually eats the flesh after time, and Lev. VII, (18) refers to the illegitimate intention of eating after time. (ii) Both were forbidden not only in the Temple, but also in the High Places used before the Temple was built. For but for this similarity, the meaning of ‘iniquity’ in VII, (18) might be deduced from Ex. XXVIII, 38: And Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things. There ‘iniquity’ refers to sacrificing in a state of uncleanness, which is forbidden by a negative injunction, but does not involve kareth, and so if an analogy were drawn with this verse, one would say that in Lev. VII, (18) too there is no kareth. But if Lev. XIX, (8) is made to refer to eating without bounds, this second analogy might indeed be drawn, since it lacks the two points of similarity, (a private sacrifice offered at a high place might be eaten anywhere) and accordingly nothing will indicate that ‘iniquity’ means kareth. So Rashi. Tosaf. explains that there was already a tradition that the meaning of ‘iniquity’ must be deduced by drawing an analogy between Lev. VII, (18) and XIX, 8. and not with Ex. XXVIII, 38. But for that very reason it is logical to make Lev. XIX, (8) refer to nothar, so as to justify the analogy through the two points of similarity.
(4). ↑ M = Mahshabah (intention); K = Kezath (a part or portion); D = Dam (blood). and SH = SHelishi (third). (i) Both after time and without bounds invalidate the sacrifice by mere intention. (ii) In both cases the illegitimate intention even in respect of a portion of the flesh only disqualifies. (iii) Both disqualify only if expressed during the service in connection with the blood (sprinkling) but not after. And finally (iv) the ‘third’ day is mentioned in connection with both. Uncleanness is dissimilar in respect of all these: (i) The flesh does not become unclean merely through the intention of defiling it. (ii) If a portion of the flesh is defiled, the rest remains clean. (iii) The flesh can be defiled after the sprinkling of the blood. And finally (iv) ‘third’ is not stated in connection with it as a superfluous word. But it is mentioned redundantly in connection with the others, as shown above, so that an analogy (gezerah shawah) might be drawn.
(5). ↑ Lev. XIX, 8.
(6). ↑ Ex. XXIX, 34.
(7). ↑ Sc. Lev. VII, 18.
(8). ↑ And ‘third’ in Lev. XIX, 7 refers to after time, and it is that which is excluded from kareth.
(9). ↑ Because the intention to eat after time is similar to eating nothar, Scripture couples them, and expresses a limitation to show that no kareth is involved, as otherwise we would think that kareth is involved in the former because it is similar to nothar.
(10). ↑ Lev. VII, 18.
(11). ↑ V. supra 13b. — The exegesis of the whole verse is irrelevant here, but as Raba quotes it he interprets the whole (Sh. M.).
(12). ↑ The blood of the peace-offerings is the vehicle through which Piggul is effected, viz., if an illegitimate intention is expressed during one of the services connected with the blood, the flesh and the emurim are thereby rendered Piggul. Just as this is so in the case of the peace-offerings, so does the law of Piggul operate in the case of all sacrifices of which the same can be said. This excludes the meal-offerings of priests and of the anointed priest and of the drink-offerings. He treats the word ‘sacrifice’ in the text as alluding to other sacrifices too, which are thus assimilated to peace-offerings, since they are coupled with them.
(13). ↑ He understands ‘it shall not be accepted’, to refer to the sprinkling of the blood, which is the last of the mattirin, i.e., the services which make the sacrifice ‘accepted’, — valid. Thus he renders: this sprinkling shall not be accepted (valid), which implies that the sacrifice does not become Piggul until the sprinkling, and if e.g., the blood is spilt and not sprinkled, the sacrifice is not Piggul. The acceptance of the invalid means the stamping of the sacrifice as Piggul, and this does not take place unless the mattirin are offered, as explained.
(14). ↑ Here he deduces that the sacrifice becomes Piggul through an illegitimate intention, thus: the sacrifice becomes unfit only when he is actually offering it, viz., by then intending to eat thereof on the third day. But if he had no illegitimate intention at the actual offering, yet ate thereof on the third day, it does not become Piggul retrospectively.
(15). ↑ Var. lec. the sacrificer. — Scripture does not mean that the priest is henceforth unfit to officiate, but that the sacrifice is unfit. Without this ‘it’ the text might mean: he that offereth (viz., the priest) shall not be accepted, i.e., shall henceforth be disqualified to officiate.