[can you say,] ‘If the more stringent ones were not stated, I would say that the more stringent ones involve death’? (1) but Surely it would be derived from the uncleanness of a reptile, and it is sufficient for the conclusion to be as the premise! (2) — Said Ze'iri: The ‘lighter ones are uncleanness of a reptile, while ‘the more stringent ones are uncleanness through a corpse, and this is what [the Tanna] means: If uncleanness of a reptile were stated, and tithe and terumah were enumerated, but uncleanness of a corpse were not stated, I would say: The lighter [defilement] involves a negative injunction in respect of the lighter [‘holy things’], and death in respect of the more stringent. (3) And since the lighter [defilement] involves death in respect of the more stringent [‘holy things’], the more stringent [defilement] too involves death in respect of the lighter [‘holy things’]. Therefore the more stringent [defilement] is stated. WHATEVER HAS AUGHT THAT MAKES IT PERMITTED, WHETHER FOR MAN OR FOR THE ALTAR, INVOLVES LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL. Our Rabbis taught:... Or perhaps it includes only that which is similar to a peace-offering: as a peace-offering is distinguished in that it is eaten two days and one night, so all that may be eaten two days and one night [are included] . (4) How do we know that that which is eaten a day and a night [only, is also included]? Because Scripture saith, [And if any] of the flesh [of the sacrifice of his peaceofferings, etc.], (5) [which includes] all whose remainder is eaten. (6) How do we know [that] a burnt-offering, whose remainder is not eaten, [is included]? Because Scripture says ‘the sacrifice’. (7) Whence do we know to include the bird-offerings and meal-offerings, until l can include a leper's log of oil? From the text, ‘which they hallow unto Me’: nothar is then learned from uncleanness, because ‘profanation’ is written in connection with both; and Piggul is learned from nothar, because iniquity is written in connection with both. (8) Now, since it [Scripture] ultimately includes all things, why then are peace-offerings specified? To teach you: as a peace-offering is distinguished in that it has something which permits it both for man and for the altar, so everything which has something which permits it both for man and for the altar involves liability on account of Piggul. [The sprinkling of] the blood of a burnt-offering permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. The blood of a bird burnt-offering permits its flesh for the altar. The blood of a bird sinoffering permits its flesh to the priests. The blood of the bullocks that are burnt and the goats that are burnt permits their emurim to be offered [on the altar]. And I exclude the fistful, the frankincense, the incense, the priests’ meal-offering, the anointed priest's meal-offering, and the blood. R. Simeon said: As a peace-offering is distinguished in that it comes on the outer altar [for sprinkling], and it involves liability; so all that come on the outer altar involve liability on account of Piggul; thus the bullocks which are burnt and the goats which are burnt are excluded; since they do not come on the outer altar, like the peaceoffering, they do not involve liability. The Master said: ‘That which is similar to a peace-offering’. What [sacrifice] is it? The firstling, which is eaten two days and one night! But how is this learnt? If by analogy? it can be refuted: as for a peace-offering, [it is subject to the law of Piggul] because it requires laying [of hands], [the accompaniment of] drink-offerings [libations], and the waving of the breast and the shoulder? (9) Again if [it is learnt] from [the text], And if there be at all eaten [any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings on the third day... it shall be an abhorred thing] [Piggul], (10) these are two generalizations which immediately follow each other? (11) — Said Raba: It is as they say in the West: (12) Wherever you find two generalizations close to each other, insert the specific proposition between them, and interpret them as a case of a generalization followed by a specific proposition [and followed again by a generalization]. (13) ‘Until I include a leper's log of oil’. With whom does that agree? With R. Meir. For it was taught: A leper's log of oil involves liability on account of Piggul: that is the opinion of R. Meir. Then consider the next clause: And I exclude the meal-offering of libations and the blood. This agrees with the Rabbis. For it was taught: The drink-offering which accompanies an animal [sacrifice] involves liability on account of Piggul, because the blood of the sacrifice permits it to be offered [on the altar]: that is R. Meir's view. Said they to him: But a man can bring his sacrifice to-day and the drink-offering even ten days later! I too, he answered them, ruled [thus] only when they come together with the sacrifice! — Said R. Joseph: The author of this is Rabbi, who maintained [that] the applications of the leper's log of oil permit it, (14) and since its sprinklings permit it, its sprinklings render it Piggul. For it was taught: You commit trespass in respect of a leper's log of oil until the blood is sprinkled; once the blood is sprinkled, you may not use it, and you do not commit trespass. Rabbi said: You commit trespass until its sprinklings are made. And both agree that it may not be eaten until its seven sprinklings and the applications on the thumbs are made. (15) This was reported before R. Jeremiah, [whereupon] he exclaimed, That a great man like R. Joseph should say such a thing!

---

(1). ↑ I.e., for eating tithe while unclean through a corpse one is liable to death.
(2). ↑ Hence as a negative injunction only is involved in eating tithe whilst unclean through a reptile, so it is likewise in eating tithe while unclean through the dead.
(3). ↑ As Scripture states.
(4). ↑ The law of Piggul is stated in Scripture in reference to a peace-offering only. The present quotation, which is fragmentary, commences thus: You might think that only a peace-offering involves liability for Piggul; how do we know that other sacrifices too are included in this law? Because Scripture says in reference to uncleanness: Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they hallow unto Me, and that they profane not My holy name (Lev. XXII, 2). This applies to all sacrifices, since the peace-offering is not specified, and an analogy is drawn anon between defilement and Piggul, and thus other sacrifices too are included in the law of Piggul. The passage then proceeds as in the text: perhaps only these sacrifices which are similar to a peace-offering are included, etc., but not such sacrifices e.g., a sin-offering, or a thanks-offering, which are eaten only on the day they are sacrificed and the night following.
(5). ↑ Lev. VII, 18. This treats of Piggul. ‘Of the flesh’ is superfluous, since Scripture could say, And if any of his peace-offerings, etc.; hence it is treated as an extension.
(6). ↑ The remainder after the fats, etc. are burnt on the altar.
(7). ↑ In the text just quoted. That too is superfluous, and therefore extends the law to every sacrifice.
(8). ↑ Uncleanness, as quoted p. 219, n. 7; nothar: But every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the holy thing (same root as ‘hallow’) of the Lord (Lev. XIX, 8). As the interdict of defilement applies to all sacrifices, so does that of nothar. Then the scope of Piggul is learnt from nothar, because ‘iniquity’ is written in connection with both: nothar, in the text just quoted; Piggul: it shall be an abhorred thing (Piggul), and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity (Lev. VII, 18): as the interdict of nothar applies to all sacrifices, so does that of Piggul.
(9). ↑ Whereas a firstling does not require these.
(10). ↑ Lev. VII, 18. The E.V. has been slightly departed from so as to follow the exact order of the Hebrew, which comes under discussion. The Heb. for ‘be at all eaten’ is heakel yeakel, i.e., the infinitive of the verb followed by the finite form, which is the usual mode of expression. The Talmud now interprets the two forms as two generalizations (anything which is eaten), while ‘peace-offerings’ is a specific proposition. In that case it is a rule of exegesis that the generalization includes everything which is similar in its general features (even if not in every detail) to the specific proposition. Hence the firstling is included, as generally speaking it is similar to the peaceoffering, in spite of differing from it in several details.
(11). ↑ Whereas the exegetical rule applies to two generalizations which are separated by the specific proposition.
(12). ↑ Sc. Palestine, which lay to the west of Babylon.
(13). ↑ Hence the firstling would be included, but not sacrifices which are eaten one day only, since these differ even in the general features (the difference in length of time allowed for eating is an important one). Therefore recourse must be had to the other texts.
(14). ↑ V. Lev. XIV, 16 seq. Now, Rabbi agrees with the Rabbis that since the drink-offering can be brought after the animal sacrifice which it accompanies, the blood of the sacrifice cannot render it Piggul. And when the Baraitha teaches that the log of oil can be Piggul, it does not mean that the blood of the guilt-offering which the leper brings renders it Piggul, but the sprinklings of the oil itself do effect this: i.e., if he sprinkles the oil with the intention of consuming the remainder after time.
(15). ↑ On trespass v. p. 176, n. 10. Now, the log of oil may not be consumed until the blood is sprinkled; therefore until then it is sacred, and if one does consume it, he commits trespass. When the blood has been sprinkled, the oil is Scripturally permitted to the priests, and this Tanna holds that whatever is permitted to the priests does not involve trespass even for a Zar (lay Israelite). Nevertheless, by Rabbinical law its consumption is forbidden until the seven sprinklings of the oil. Rabbi holds that it is even Scripturally forbidden until then, and therefore it still involves trespass. But they both agree that it is forbidden by Rabbinical law until all its sprinklings have been made. — From this passage we see that Rabbi holds that the oil is permitted for consumption not by the blood of the sacrifice, but by its own sprinklings.