he is liable? (1) Surely it was taught, R. Judah said: You might think that if one slaughters a sin-offering in the south he is liable; therefore Scripture states, ‘Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God an ox, or a sheep wherein is a blemish, even any evil thing’: You can declare him liable for any evil thing, (2) but you cannot make him liable for slaughtering a sin-offering in the south? — There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R. Judah's view. R. Abba (3) said: Yet R. Judah admits that he [the priest] can subsequently render it piggul. (4) Said Raba: This is the proof, viz.: [a] Piggul [intention made] before the sprinkling is nothing, yet the sprinkling comes and brands it as piggul. (5) Yet that is not so: there there was only one intention: (6) here there are two intentions. (7) R. Huna raised an objection to R. Abba: [If the priest intended] applying [the blood] which should be applied above [the line] below [it], [or what should be applied] below, above, immediately, it is valid. If he subsequently intended [to consume it] without bounds, it is invalid, but does not involve kareth: [if he intended consuming it] after time, it is unfit, and one is liable to kareth on its account. [If he intended sprinkling the blood in the wrong place] on the morrow, it is unfit; if he subsequently intended [to consume it] without bounds or after time, it is unfit, and does not involve kareth. (8) This refutation of R. Abba is indeed a refutation. R. Hisda said in the name of Rabina b. Sila: If he intended that unclean [persons] should eat it on the morrow, (9) he is liable. (10) Said Raba: This is the proof, viz., before sprinkling the flesh is not fit [for eating], and yet when he declares a [Piggul] intention it becomes unfit. (11) Yet it is not so: there he will sprinkle [the blood] and [the flesh] will be fit; here [the unclean] are not fit at all. R. Hisda said: R. Dimi b. Hinena was wont to say: One is liable for uncleanness in respect of unroasted flesh of a Passover-offering and loaves of a thanks-offering of which no separation [for the priest] was made. (12) Raba said, This is the proof, viz.: It was taught, [But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace — offerings,] that pertain unto the Lord [having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people]: (13) this includes the emurim of lesser sacrifices in respect of uncleanness. (14) This proves that though they are not fit for eating at all, one is liable for uncleanness on their account. So here too, though they are not fit for eating, one is liable for uncleanness on their account. Yet it is not so: there the emurim of lesser sacrifices are fit for the Most-High; (15) which excludes unroasted flesh of the Passover-offering and the loaves of the thanks-offering of which no separation was made, which are fit neither for the Most-High nor for man. (Another version: Now the emurim are not fit! — Yet it is not so: these emurim are fit for their purpose, whereas these are not fit at all.) (16) MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS TO BE SPRINKLED ON THE OUTER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED [IT] WITH ONE SPRINKLING, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT. (17) BUT IN THE CASE OF A SIN-OFFERING TWO APPLICATIONS [ARE INDISPENSABLE]; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: IN THE CASE OF THE SIN-OFFERING TOO, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT WITH A SINGLE APPLICATION, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT. THEREFORE IF HE MADE THE FIRST APPLICATION IN THE PROPER MANNER AND THE SECOND [WITH THE INTENTION TO EAT THE FLESH] AFTER TIME, HE HAS ATONED. (18) AND IF HE MADE THE FIRST APPLICATION [WITH THE INTENTION TO EAT THE FLESH] AFTER TIME AND THE SECOND WITHOUT BOUNDS, IT IS PIGGUL AND INVOLVES KARETH. (19) WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS SPRINKLED ON THE INNER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] OMITTED ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS, HE HAS NOT ATONED; THEREFORE IF HE APPLIED ALL IN THE PROPER MANNER BUT ONE IN AN IMPROPER MANNER, (20) IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. (21) GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that if [the priest] made one application in the case of those [bloods] which are to be sprinkled on the outer altar, he has made atonement? From the text, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out. (22) Now, is this text required for that purpose? Surely it is needed for what was taught:

---

(1). ↑ To flagellation, the usual punishment for violating a negative command. This follows since R. Judah includes slaughtering a sin-offering in the south in the Scriptural injunction quoted above.
(2). ↑ In Bek. 37a this is held to mean a patent blemish.
(3). ↑ Sh. M. emends: Raba.
(4). ↑ Where he intended leaving the blood for the morrow or carrying it without. Although R. Judah holds that he thereby disqualifies the sacrifice, yet if he intended at a subsequent service to eat the flesh after time, he renders it Piggul. This is so in spite of the fact that generally speaking a Piggul intention is operative only when there is no other disqualification, such as intending to eat it without bounds.
(5). ↑ Raba proves that the intention to leave the blood until the morrow is not the same as the intention to eat the flesh without bounds, which makes Piggul impossible. For if, before sprinkling, the priest declares his intention of sprinkling the blood on the morrow, it does not render the sacrifice Piggul, it being axiomatic that a sacrifice is not rendered Piggul unless the mattirin (q.v. Glos.) have been properly offered. Nevertheless, if he subsequently sprinkles the blood properly, his previously declared intention is retrospectively valid and renders the sacrifice valid. Now, this intention was in effect an intention to leave the blood until the morrow, which in R. Judah's view disqualifies the sacrifice (though not rendering it Piggul). This proves that we do not say, Since it did not become Piggul at the outset it is disqualified through the intention of leaving the blood, and it cannot subsequently become Piggul.
(6). ↑ Viz., to sprinkle the blood on the morrow, which is a Piggul intention.
(7). ↑ Viz., first to leave the blood until the morrow, which disqualifies but does not render Piggul, and then to eat the flesh after time.
(8). ↑ V. supra 26b for notes. The last clause definitely contradicts R. Abba.
(9). ↑ Which is after time.
(10). ↑ On account of Piggul. We do not say that this is not an efficacious intention in respect of Piggul since the unclean may not eat of it at any time.
(11). ↑ As Piggul. This case is analogous.
(12). ↑ A thanks-offering was accompanied by forty loaves, four of which were taken off for the priest. Before that was done, the loaves might not be eaten; similarly, a Passover-offering might be eaten roast only. Nevertheless, an unclean person who partakes of them is liable on account of his defilement, though they could not be eaten even by a clean person.
(13). ↑ Lev. VII, 20.
(14). ↑ Though the lesser sacrifices were eaten by their owners, the emurim were burnt on the altar and thus ‘pertained unto the Lord’, and Scripture teaches that an unclean priest who eats these emurim incurs kareth.
(15). ↑ Viz., to be burnt on the altar.
(16). ↑ The bracketed addition is omitted in some MSS.
(17). ↑ The sacrifice is valid, though in the first place two applications are required.
(18). ↑ Since the first alone sufficed. — According to Beth Shammai this holds good of all sacrifices except a sin-offering, and according to Beth Hillel that too is not excepted.
(19). ↑ The second intention does not neutralize the first.
(20). ↑ I.e., with wrongful intention.
(21). ↑ Since one application is insufficient to make the sacrifice fit; — he holds that a sacrifice cannot be made Piggul through a service which is incomplete in itself to make the sacrifice fit.
(22). ↑ Deut. XII, 27. — This implies a single pouring out.