[this teaches that the illegitimate intention must refer to] a place with a threefold function, [viz.,] in respect of blood, flesh, and emurim. (1) Now, let an intention concerning without not disqualify [the sacrifice], a fortiori: if although the blood within disqualifies [the blood] without, an intention concerning within does not disqualify; then seeing that the blood without does not disqualify [the blood] within, is it not logical that an intention concerning without shall not disqualify? Therefore Scripture writes ‘third’, which means after time; while Piggul means without bounds. (2) Flesh which goes without becomes unfit; that which enters within, is fit. Now, logically it might be unfit. For if though the blood without does not disqualify [the blood] within, flesh which goes without becomes unfit; then since blood within does disqualify [blood] without, is it not logical that flesh which enters within shall be disqualified? Lo, it says, any of the blood: its blood [disqualifies], (3) but not its flesh. Then in that case you can argue a fortiori: if though the blood within disqualifies [the blood] without, flesh that enters within is fit; then since blood without does not disqualify [blood] within, is it not logical that flesh that goes without is fit? Lo, it says. Therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field: (4) once flesh passes without bounds, it is forbidden. (5) Our Rabbis taught: [Behold the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary] within: (6) I only know [it of] within; (7) how do we know [it of] the Hekal? Because it says, into the sanctuary within. (8) Then let the ‘sanctuary’ be stated, but not ‘within’? — Said Raba: One comes and illumines the other, (9) this being analogous to the case of toshab and sakir. For it was taught: Toshab means one [a Hebrew slave] acquired in perpetuity; sakir, one purchased for a period of [six] years. (10) Now, let toshab be stated, but not sakir, and I would reason: if one acquired in perpetuity may not eat, how much more so one acquired only for a period of [six] years? (11) Were it so, I would say: Toshab is one purchased for a limited period, but one acquired in perpetuity may eat. Therefore sakir comes and teaches the meaning of toshab, that the latter is one purchased in perpetuity, while the former is one purchased for a period of [six] years, and [neither] may eat. Said Abaye to him, As for there, it is well: They are two persons, and though Scripture could write, A [slave] whose ear was bored may not eat, (12) and the other would be inferred a minori, yet Scripture [often] takes the trouble to write a thing which is derived a minori. But here, since it becomes unfit in the Hekal, what business has the inner sanctuary? (13) — Rather said Abaye: It is required only [where the priest takes] a circuitous route. (14) Said Raba to him: But ‘entering’ is written in connection therewith? (15) — Rather said Raba: Whatever [the priest] intends [to carry into] the innermost sanctuary does not become unfit in the hekal. (16) Raba asked: What if [the priest] carried the blood of the congregational bullock for forgetfulness or the he-goat for idolatry into the innermost sanctuary? (17) Do we say, [Scripture writes] ‘into the sanctuary within’; wherever we read ‘into the sanctuary’ we read ‘within’, and wherever we do not read ‘into the sanctuary’, we do not read ‘within’?18 Or perhaps, it is not in its place. (19) Now, should you answer that it is not in its place, what if [the priest] sprinkled the blood of the bullock and that of the he-goat of the Day of Atonement on the slaves, then carried it out into the hekal, (20) and then took it in again? (21) Do we say, It is their place; or perhaps, once it has gone out, it has gone out? (22) Should you answer, Once it has gone out, it has gone out: What if he sprinkled their blood on the veil,

---

(1). ↑ V. supra 29a.
(2). ↑ V. supra 28a and whole discussion there.
(3). ↑ When it is brought into the Hekal.
(4). ↑ Ex. XXII, 30.
(5). ↑ ‘In the field’, is apparently superfluous. Hence it is interpreted as intimating that when flesh is found beyond its bounds (as a field, which has no barriers), it is a Terefah (lit., torn of the beasts’), and forbidden.
(6). ↑ Lev. X, 28.
(7). ↑ i.e., only if the blood is taken into the innermost sanctuary is the sacrifice disqualified.
(8). ↑ The sanctuary corresponds to the Hekal, which contained the Table and the Candlestick (v. Ex. XXV, 23. 31), and led into the Holy of Holies; cf. infra 83a.
(9). ↑ Only because ‘within’ is written do we know that ‘sanctuary’ means the Hekal (for otherwise it is superfluous). But if ‘sanctuary’ alone were written, it might mean the innermost sanctuary.
(10). ↑ The reference is to Lev. XXII, 10: A toshab of a priest, or a sakir, shall not eat of the holy thing (i.e., terumah).
(11). ↑ For the former is more of the priest's chattel (v. ibid. 10) than the latter.
(12). ↑ V. Ex. XXI, 5 f.
(13). ↑ For, in order to get into the inner sanctuary it must pass through the Hekal.
(14). ↑ E.g. he enters the innermost sanctuary by way of the roof or through upper chambers, avoiding the Hekal altogether.
(15). ↑ Which implies that it becomes unfit only if he enters the innermost sanctuary in the usual way.
(16). ↑ This is intimated when Scripture states both ‘sanctuary’ and ‘within’. Hence if he changes his mind after carrying it into the Hekal and takes it back, it remains fit.
(17). ↑ If the whole congregation sins through having forgotten a law a bullock must be sacrificed; for unwitting idolatry a he-goat is brought. The blood of these must be taken into the Hekal, but not into the innermost sanctuary.
(18). ↑ Only where the sacrifice is disqualified when the blood is taken ‘into the sanctuary’ (i.e., the Hekal), it is likewise disqualified when it is taken ‘within’ (the innermost shrine), but not otherwise.
(19). ↑ The text implies that when the blood is taken without bounds the sacrifice is disqualified, and that applies here too.
(20). ↑ To sprinkle the blood on the veil, as is necessary.
(21). ↑ Into the innermost shrine: this was no longer necessary.
(22). ↑ And must not be taken in again.