Talmud - Zevahim 27a זבחים כ״ז א׳

to burn or eat the offering or sprinkle its blood outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, and there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it. But if he had intent to perform one of those actions beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.

If he had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly the next day, beyond the permitted time, then the offering is disqualified. Nevertheless, it is not rendered piggul, because he also had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly. Therefore, if he subsequently had intent to sacrifice the offering or consume its meat, whether beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, it is disqualified and there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, because an offering can be rendered piggul only if it would have otherwise been fit.

The Gemara asks: But if blood sprinkled not in its proper place is considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, then in this case above, where he had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly the next day, is the offering merely disqualified? Since it is considered as though he had intent to sprinkle the blood properly the next day, shouldn’t the offering be rendered piggul?

Mar Zutra said: Intent with regard to sprinkling that permits the meat for consumption can cause the offering to become piggul. Intent with regard to sprinkling that does not render the meat permitted for consumption does not cause it to become piggul. Even Shmuel concedes that although the owner achieves atonement, if the blood is sprinkled in an improper place the meat may not be consumed. Accordingly, this offering is not rendered piggul.

Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: From where do you derive this? Mar Zutra replied: I derive it from a verse, as it is written: “And if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offers it, it shall be piggul” (Leviticus 7:18). The verse indicates that only an offering whose intent of piggul alone caused it to be disqualified is considered piggul. Excluded is this case, whose intent of piggul alone did not cause it to be disqualified; rather, the prohibition of something else, i.e., the intent to sprinkle the blood in an improper location, caused it to be disqualified.

The Gemara challenges: But if so, i.e., if blood applied not in its proper place is considered as though it were applied in its proper place, and the intent to sprinkle the blood the next day does not render the offering piggul, then it should not even be disqualified due to such an intention. Why, then, does the baraita rule that it is disqualified?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In general, intent to perform the rites of an offering beyond its designated time disqualifies the offering, even when it does not render it piggul, just as is the case with regard to the intent to leave portions of the offering for the next day, as taught in a mishna in the next chapter (35b), and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda there, that intent to leave the blood until the next day rather than sprinkling it on the altar disqualifies the offering even though it does not render it piggul.

§ The Gemara cites additional opinions with regard to the statement of the mishna that blood misapplied on the altar disqualifies the offering. Reish Lakish says: Actually, when the mishna states that the offering is disqualified, this is to be taken literally, i.e., that the owner does not even achieve atonement through it. And nevertheless, blood sprinkled not in its proper place is considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, and it effects atonement. And the apparent contradiction between these two claims is not difficult: Here, where misapplication of the blood effects atonement, it is a case where he placed it in silence, i.e., without specific intent; there, in the mishna, it is a case where he placed it with a statement, i.e., intent to consume the offering beyond its appointed time.

Since Reish Lakish agrees with the statement of Shmuel that blood applied not in its proper place is considered as though it were applied in its proper place, the Gemara poses the same difficulties to the statement of Reish Lakish as posed above to Shmuel: We learned in a baraita: If one slaughtered an offering and had intent to place the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, or to place the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line, etc., until the response of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Just as is the case with regard to the intent to leave portions of the offering for the next day, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, etc.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Both here and there, i.e., in the mishna here as well as in the mishna in the next chapter (32a), it is a case where he placed the blood in silence. And the mishna here rules that the offering is completely disqualified because blood applied not in its proper place is not considered as though it were applied in its proper place. And that mishna in the next chapter, which states that the blood may be collected and sprinkled again, is referring to a case where there is blood of the soul left in the animal to sprinkle again, while this mishna is referring to a case where there is no blood of the soul left.

The Gemara challenges: We learned in the mishna that if the blood was misapplied on the altar, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the meat. Granted, according to Reish Lakish, who explains that the mishna is referring to one who expresses intent to sacrifice or consume the offering beyond its designated time, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: Disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, to stress that although one sprinkled the blood with intent of piggul, since the sprinkling was performed improperly, his intent does not render the offering piggul, and one who partakes of it is not liable to receive karet.

But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who explains that the mishna is referring to a case where the blood was sprinkled with no specific intent, of what necessity is the clause: There is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it? Since the offering is disqualified because the blood was placed not in its proper place, and there was no intent of piggul, why would one think that there should be liability for karet? The Gemara responds: Indeed, this clause is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan.

The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, of what necessity is the clause: There is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it? The Gemara responds: This is what the mishna is saying: If one placed the blood improperly with intent that would otherwise render the offering piggul, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, because such sprinkling would not have permitted the meat for consumption.

The Gemara challenges: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, if blood sprinkled not in its proper place is not considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, it should be as if it spilled from the service vessel onto the floor, and let the priest gather it up and sprinkle it again properly. Why, then, does the mishna rule that it is disqualified?

The Gemara responds: The tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says: He may not gather it up. As Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All concede with regard to the blood that is to be placed above the red line that if one placed it above the red line, and likewise with regard to the blood that is to be placed below the red line if one placed it below the red line, not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva, e.g., with the left hand or with improper intent, he may not gather it up again. They disagree only with regard to the blood that is to be placed above the red line that one placed below the red line, and blood that is to be placed below the red line that one placed above the red line, as Rabbi Yosei says: He may not gather it up, and Rabbi Shimon says: He may gather it up.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Zevachim 27a examines when improper intent during sacrificial rites renders an offering piggul versus merely disqualified, focusing on blood sprinkling timing and location.