Mishnayos Zevachim Perek 4 Mishnah 3
Change text layout:
זבחים פרק ד׳ משנה ג׳
And these are the items for which one is not liable to receive karet due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. One is liable to receive karet only if he partakes of an item that was permitted for consumption or for the altar by another item. As for the items listed here, either nothing else renders them permitted for consumption or for the altar, or they themselves render other items permitted. They are as follows: The handful of flour, which permits consumption of the meal offering; the incense, which is burned in its entirety, without another item rendering it permitted for the altar; the frankincense, which is burned together with the handful of the meal offering; the meal offering of priests, from which no handful of flour is removed and which is burned in its entirety (see Leviticus 6:16); the meal offering of the anointed priest, which is sacrificed by the High Priest each day, half in the morning and half in the evening; the blood, which permits all the offerings; and the libations that are brought by themselves as a separate offering and do not accompany an animal offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The same halakha applies even with regard to libations that are brought with an animal offering. With regard to the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper, Rabbi Shimon says: One is not liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, because it is not permitted by any other item. And Rabbi Meir says: One is liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the guilt offering of the leper permits its use, as only after the blood’s sacrifice is the oil sprinkled and given to the priests. And the principle is: With regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.
אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל. הַקֹּמֶץ, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, (וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים), וְהַדָּם, וְהַנְּסָכִים הַבָּאִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אַף הַבָּאִים עִם הַבְּהֵמָה. לֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצֹרָע, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, שֶׁדַּם הָאָשָׁם מַתִּירוֹ. וְכֹל שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִים בֵּין לָאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל:
Bartenura
אלו דברים שאין חייבים עליהם כרת באכילתן משום פגול:
הקומץ. אם קמץ על מנת לאכול שירים למחר, ונתפגלה המנחה שאינה נאכלת אלא ליום ולילה, אין האוכל את הקומץ בכרת, שאין פגול חל אלא על דבר שיש לו מתירין אחרים. דפגול משלמים ילפינן ליה דכתיב (ויקרא ז׳:כ״א) ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו וגו׳, מה שלמים מיוחדים שיש להם מתירין בין לאדם בין למזבח, שהדם מתיר להקטיר האמורין למזבח, והאמורין מתירין הבשר לאדם, וחייבין עליהם משום פגול, אף כל שיש לו מתירין בין לאדם בין למזבח חייבין עליו משום פגול, לאפוקי כל הנך דחשיב במתניתין, שאין להם מתירין אלא הן עצמן מתירין לאחרים, שהאוכל מהן אינו חייב משום פגול:
והלבונה. אין אחר מתירה. אלא היא מתרת את המנחה, כמו הקומץ:
מנחת נדבת כהנים. כולה כליל ואינה נקמצת. הלכך אין אחר מתירה:
מנחת כהן משיח. דהיינו חביתי כהן גדול שהיא קריבה בכל יום מחציתה בבקר ומחציתה בערב:
ומנחת נסכים. לא גרסינן דהא מפליג פליגי בה. ויש חילוק בין באה עם הזבח לבאה בפני עצמה:
והדם. הוא המתיר:
והנסכים הבאים בפני עצמן. כגון שהתנדב מנחת נסכים בלא זבח, כדאמרינן במנחות, מתנדב אדם מנחת נסכים בפני עצמה. אי נמי, הביאה בשביל הזבח אלא שהביא זבחו היום ונסכיו למחר, דאמר מר ומנחתם ונסכיהם אפילו למחר. אבל אם הביאן עם זבחו ופגל בזבח, נתפגלו הנסכים:
וחכמים אומרים אף הבאים עם הבהמה. דכיון דיכול להקריב נסכים למחר, נמצא שאין הזבח מתירן ליקרב, אלא הן מתירין את עצמן. והלכה כחכמים:
לוג שמן של מצורע. שייריו נאכלין:
אין חייבין עליו משום פגול. אם פיגל באשם לא נפגל הלוג. ואע״פ שהלוג תלוי באשם, דכתיב (שם י״ד) על דם האשם, דאם לא נתן מדם האשם תחלה אין נתינת השמן כלום, אפילו הכי כיון דאדם מביא אשמו עכשיו ולוגו עד עשרה ימים, נמצא שאין האשם מתירו. וכיון דאין לו מתירים, אין חייבין עליו משום פגול:
ור״מ אומר. לוג הבא עם האשם בו ביום, חייבין עליו משום פגול אם פגל באשם. ואין הלכה כר״מ:
בין לאדם בין למזבח. או לזה או לזה:
אלו דברים שאין חייבים עליהם – [not liable on them] for extirpation when consuming them because of offerings disqualified by improper intentions.
הקומץ (Kohen taking a fistful of the meal-offering to be placed on the altar) -if he took a fistful on the condition to eat its remnants the next day (see Tractate Menahot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1), and the meal-offering became rejectable that it is not consumed other than during [that] day and the night [following], the person who eats the fistful [of meal-offering] is not [liable] for extirpation, for the inappropriate intention does not occur other than upon a thing that has (a sacrificial object) which requires another act to make it permissible, for we derive offerings disqualified by inappropriate intention from peace-offering as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): “If any of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being (i.e., peace-offering) [is eaten on the third day; it shall not be acceptable; it shall not count for him who offered it. It is an offensive thing/פגול יהיה, and the person who eats it shall bear his guilt].” Just as peace-offerings/sacrifices of well-being are particular in that they require an act to make it permissible whether for man or for the altar, for the blood permits those portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar, and the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar permit the meat to man, and they are liable upon them because of an offering disqualified due to inappropriate intention, excluding all of those that are counted in our Mishnah, which do not have any action that makes it permissible for them than they themselves which permit for others, the person who eats from them is not liable because an offering made with an inappropriate intention.
והלבונה (frankincense) – there is nothing else that makes it permissible, but rather it permits the meal-offering, like the fistful of meal-offering.
מנחת נדבת כהנים (free-will meal-offering of the priests) – all of which is burnt entirely (see Leviticus 6:16: “So, too, every grain offering offering of a priest shall be a whole offering: it shall not be eaten.”) and is not grabbed from. Therefore, there is nothing else that permits it.
מנחת כהן משיח – that is the cakes of the High Priest which is offered each day, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening (see Leviticus 6:13: “This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer on the occasion of his anointment: a tenth of ephah of choice flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.”).
ומנחת נכסים – we do not have the tradition because they (Rabbi Meir and the Sages further on in our Mishnah) dispute this. And there is a division between it coming with the sacrifice to it coming on its own.
והדם – which permits it.
והנסכים הבאים בפני עצמן – as for example, when he made a free-will meal offering [accompanying] the drink-offering/libation without a sacrifice, as we state in Menahot (see Menahot 15b), a person makes a freewill donation of a meal offering [accompanying a drink-offering/libation on its own. Alternatively, he brought it for the sacrifice, but that he brought his sacrifice today and his libations on the morrow, for the Master stated (Numbers 29:37): “the grain offerings and libations [for the bull, the ram, and the lambs, in he quantities prescribed],” even on the morrow, but if he brought them with his sacrifice and he was disqualified by an improper intention with the sacrifice, the libations were also disqualified by improper intention.
וחכמים אומרים אף הבאים עם הבהמה – for since he can offer up the libations on the morrow, it is found that hat he sacrifice [itself] permits them, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.
לוג שמן של מצורע – its remnants are consumed.
אין חייבין עליו משום פגול – if his guilt offering was disqualified due to an improper intention, the LOG was not disqualified due to an improper intention. But even though that the LOG is dependent upon the guilt-offering, as it is written (Leviticus 14:17): “[Some of the oil left in his palm shall be put by the priest on the ridge of the right ear of he one being purified, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot -] over the blood of the reparation/guilt-offering,” for if he did not place from the blood of the reparation offering first, the placement of the oil is not worth anything, nevertheless since a person brings his reparation offering now and his LOG (of oil) within ten days, it is found that the reparation offering does not permit it, and since it has nothing that permits it, they are not liable for inappropriate intention.
ור"מ אומר – the LOG [of oil) that comes with the sacrifice on that day, one is liable for it because of an inappropriate intention if he had an inappropriate intention with the reparation offering. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.
בין לאדם בין למזבח – whether this or that.