Sifra
Tzav, Chapter 13
Tzav, Chapter 13
1) I might think that (piggul) thought invalidated only outside of its (the offering's) prescribed time. Whence do I derive (that it also invalidates) outside of its prescribed place? It follows by induction, viz.: Time invalidates and bound invalidates. Just as (piggul) thought invalidates outside of the prescribed time it should also invalidate outside of the prescribed bound.
2) — Now if (piggul) thought invalidates outside of its prescribed time, which (invalidation) obtains in a bamah (a temporary altar), should it also invalidate outside of its prescribed bound, which (invalidation) does not obtain in a bamah! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:7): "And if it is eaten on the third day, it is rejected (piggul); it shall not be accepted." Let this not be stated, (for it is already written here). If it is not needed for (piggul invalidation) outside of its time, learn it as applying to (piggul invalidation) outside of its place. I might think that it (piggul thought outside of its place) entails kareth liability); it is, therefore, written in respect to peace-offerings (Vayikra 7:18) ("And the soul that eats of it) shall bear its sin" — Outside of its time entails kareth, and not outside of its place. I might think that even one who slaughters for gentiles or for those who are tamei (to eat it or to offer up the devoted portions) should come under (Vayikra 7:18) "It shall not be accepted"; it is, therefore, written ("It shall not be accepted; he that offers) it." It (burning the devoted portions after they have become invalidated by piggul thought) comes under the interdict, but not slaughtering for gentiles or for those who are tamei.
3) I might think that one is in violation of "It shall not be accepted" only (for an offering) that was slaughtered outside of its time and place. Whence do I derive the same for one that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled out or went outside the (tabernacle) curtains, one (whose blood or devoted portions) was left overnight, one (whose devoted portions) went outside the azarah, one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those who are unfit, one whose blood was to be applied below (the red line on the altar), which was applied above, or the opposite; one (whose blood was to be applied inside (the sanctuary), which was applied outside, or the opposite; and a Pesach and a sin-offering, which were not offered as such (— Whence is it derived for all of these that if one transgressed and sacrificed them he receives stripes by reason of "It shall not be accepted")? From (the redundant) "it shall not be accepted" and "it shall not be reckoned." I might think that these entail kareth liability. It is, therefore, written ("He that offers) it." He (one who thinks to eat it outside of its time) and its eaters are subject to kareth, and not the others.
4) You say that this is the purpose of these phrases of exclusion (like "it" above). But perhaps its intent is to limit what is said to peace-offerings alone, (that only they entail kareth liability for piggul and nothar). Whence do we derive the same for all offerings? From (Vayikra 22:3): "A man who draws near of all your seed to the holy things (all of the offerings), etc." — But perhaps only those offerings are included which are like peace-offerings, viz.: Just as peace-offerings are characterized by being eaten for two days, so, all that are thus characterized (are included). Whence do I derive (for inclusion) those which are eaten for only one day? From (the redundant) "flesh" (Vayikra 7:18 "the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings.") This tells me only of those (offerings) whose flesh is eaten. Whence do I derive (the same) for those who flesh is not eaten? From "the sacrifice" — even birds, which are a kind of sacrifice. And whence do I derive (the same) for meal-offerings, which are not a kind of sacrifice? (And whence do I proceed) until I derive (the same for) the log of oil of the leper? From (Vayikra 22:3) (all) "the holy things that the children of Israel make holy to the L–rd."
5) Now that we have included things that are like peace-offerings and things that are not like peace-offerings, why is "peace-offerings" (specifically) mentioned? Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in having "permitters" (the sprinkling of the blood, which permits eating) to the man and (burning of the devoted portions) to the altar, so, I include only those offerings which have permitters to the man or to the altar — like the bird sin-offering, which has permitters (blood) to the man, and not to the altar, and like the bird burnt-offering, which has permitters to the altar, and not to the man, and like the burnt bullocks and the burnt he-goats, which have permitters to the altar and not to the man. What do I exclude (from piggul invalidation)? The fistful, and the frankincense, and the incense, and the meal-offering of Cohanim, (which are completely burnt and no fistful taken therefrom), the meal-offering of the anointed (high-) priest, the libation meal-offering, and the blood — all of which have no permitters, neither to the man nor to the altar. R. Shimon says: Peace-offerings are distinctive in being offered on the outer altar — I (therefore) exclude the burnt bullocks and the burnt he-goats, which are not offered on the outer altar.
6) R. Elazar says in the name of R. Yossi: If one had a piggul thought concerning something done outside (in the azarah), it is piggul; concerning something done inside (in the sanctuary), it is not piggul. How so? If he slaughtered (outside) with the intent of sprinkling the blood (inside) on the next day, it is not piggul; for the thought was outside concerning something (sprinkling) which is done inside.
7) If he sprinkled the blood (inside) with the intent of burning its devoted portions (outside) on the next day, it is not piggul; for the thought was inside concerning something which is done outside.
8) But if he slaughtered and received the blood (on the outside) with the intent of spilling the remaining blood and burning the devoted portions (on the outside) on the next day, it is piggul, for the thought was outside concerning something which is done outside.
9) (Vayikra 7:18) ("And the soul that eats of it shall bear its sin") "the soul": and not the congregation. "that eats": and not that makes (someone else) eat, (in which instance the "maker" is not subject to kareth, but does transgress placing a stumbling block before the blind). "that eats": an olive-size. "shall bear (tissa) its sin": There is an identity (gezeirah shavah) between "shall bear (tissa) its sin" here and "shall bear (yissa) his sin" elsewhere (Vayikra 19:8). Just as there, (in respect to nothar), the punishment is kareth; so, here, (in respect to piggul), the punishment is kareth.