הֲרֵי לוֹג [הַבָּא] בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, דִּלְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מַתְּנוֹתָיו שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ – וְלָא מְפַגְּלִין לֵיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּם מַתִּירוֹ לִבְהוֹנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

But there is the case of the log of oil that is brought by itself, i.e., where the leper brings it after he has sacrificed his offerings. There everyone agrees that its placements render the remainder of the oil permitted to the priests, and yet they do not render the oil piggul , as it is taught in a baraita : With regard to the log of oil of a leper, one is liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul , as the blood of the offering renders it permitted to be placed on the thumb and big toe of the leper. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: וַהֲלֹא אָדָם מֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ עַכְשָׁיו, וְלוֹג מִיכָּן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים! אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בַּבָּא עִם הָאָשָׁם.

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: But a person may bring his guilt offering today and the accompanying log of oil from now until even ten days later. Rabbi Meir said to them: I too spoke only about a log of oil that comes with the guilt offering. This indicates that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is the blood of the offering that renders the oil piggul .

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וּסְמֵי מִיכָּן נְסָכִים. אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם לָא תִּסְמֵי, וְתָנָא לוֹג הַבָּא עִם הָאָשָׁם, וְהוּא הַדִּין לִנְסָכִים הַבָּאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח. וַהֲדַר תָּנָא נְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְלוֹג הַבָּא לִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says: Actually, the aforementioned baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and omit the case of the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings from the list of items that are not subject to the halakha of piggul . Abaye says: Actually, do not omit this item from the list, and the baraita can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir as follows: The tanna first taught the halakha with regard to the log of oil that comes with the leper’s guilt offering, and the same is true of libations that come with an animal offering, as according to Rabbi Meir piggul status applies to both of these. And then the tanna taught that piggul does not apply to libations that come by themselves, and the same is true of a log of oil that comes by itself.

״חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – דָּמָהּ מַתִּיר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים״. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the bird burnt offering, its blood renders its meat and its skin permitted to be eaten by the priests. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that the meat of a bird burnt offering is eaten by the priests, derived? The Gemara cites a baraita that Levi teaches, with regard to a verse that discusses the gifts that are to be presented to the priests: “This shall be yours of the most sacred items, from the fire: Every offering of theirs, every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every guilt offering of theirs, which they shall render to Me, shall be most sacred for you and for your sons” (Numbers 18:9).

״כָּל קָרְבָּנָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמִינָא: ״מִן הָאֵשׁ״ כָּתַב רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו מוֹתָר מִן הָאֵשׁ הוּא – קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

The baraita clarifies what is included by the term “every” in each of these clauses. The verse states: “Every offering of theirs,” which serves to include the log of oil of a leper; it too is given to the priests. The Gemara explains why it is necessary to derive from the verse that the oil is a gift to the priesthood: It might enter your mind to say that the oil should not be included, as the Merciful One writes in this same verse: “From the fire,” and this log of oil, notwithstanding its status as an offering, is not reserved from the fire. Only an item concerning which part of it is brought to the altar can be said to be reserved from the fire, and none of the oil is brought to the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: “Every offering of theirs,” that the oil goes to the priests.

״לְכָל מִנְחָתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת עוֹמֶר וּמִנְחַת הַקְּנָאוֹת. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמִינָא: ״וְאָכְלוּ אוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר כֻּפַּר בָּהֶם״, וּמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר – לְהַתִּיר אָתְיָא, וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת – לְבָרֵר עָוֹן קָאָתְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

The phrase: “Every meal offering of theirs,” serves to include the omer meal offering, brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and the meal offering of jealousy, brought by a sota . The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that as the verse states with regard to the consumption of sacrificial food by the priests: “And they shall eat those items with which atonement is achieved” (Exodus 29:33), And this would exclude the omer meal offering and the meal offering of jealousy, as the omer meal offering comes to permit the consumption of the new crop, and the meal offering of jealousy comes to clarify the transgression of the sota , as part of the ordeal undergone by the woman. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: “Every meal offering of theirs,” that even these meal offerings are eaten by the priests.

״וּלְכָל חַטָּאתָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת חַטַּאת הָעוֹף. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמִינָא: נְבֵילָה הִיא.

The phrase: “And every sin offering of theirs,” serves to include the bird sin offering; its meat too is given to the priests. The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that this meat should not be eaten at all, as it is an unslaughtered animal carcass, since the bird is killed by pinching its nape (see Leviticus 5:8) rather than by slaughtering, which is the manner of ritual slaughter of non-sacred birds. Therefore, the phrase: “And every sin offering of theirs,” teaches that the bird sin offering is eaten by the priests.

״לְכָל אֲשָׁמָם״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמִינָא: לְהַכְשִׁיר קָאָתוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

The phrase: “Every guilt offering of theirs,” serves to include the guilt offering of a nazirite who contracted ritual impurity, and the guilt offering of a leper. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that these should not be given to the priests to eat, as they come to qualify these individuals, rather than to atone. The guilt offering of a nazirite renders him fit to restart his term of naziriteship, and the guilt offering of a leper qualifies him to eat sacrificial food, whereas the verse states: “And they shall eat those items with which atonement is achieved” (Exodus 29:33). Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: “Every guilt offering of theirs,” that these offerings as well are eaten by the priests.

אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא: לְרַבּוֹת אֲשַׁם נָזִיר כַּאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.

The Gemara challenges: It is explicitly written with regard to the guilt offering of a leper that it is consumed by the priests: “For as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 14:13). Why, then, is this derivation necessary? Rather, the baraita means to say that the phrase: “Every guilt offering of theirs,” serves to include the guilt offering of a nazirite, teaching that it is like the guilt offering of a leper, in that both are eaten by the priests.

״אֲשֶׁר יָשִׁיבוּ״ – זֶה גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר, ״לְךָ הוּא״ – שֶׁלְּךָ יִהְיֶה, אֲפִילּוּ לְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה.

The baraita continues: With regard to the phrase “which they shall render to Me,” this is referring to an item stolen from a convert. One who robs a convert who then dies with no heirs must give the stolen item and an additional one-fifth to the priests. Finally, the term “for you” teaches that it shall be yours, even to betroth a woman with it, i.e., these gifts are considered the priest’s property in all regards.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: פִּיגֵּל בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ – פִּיגֵּל, בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים – לֹא פִּיגֵּל.

§ According to the first tanna of the mishna, the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, the blood of which is presented on the inner altar, are subject to piggul , whereas Rabbi Shimon rules that they are not subject to piggul . It is taught in a baraita that there is a third opinion concerning the matter: Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If in his service of the bulls that are burned or the goats that are burned the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul with regard to a matter that is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, he has rendered the offering piggul . If his intention was with regard to a matter that is performed inside the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, he has not rendered the offering piggul .

כֵּיצַד? הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹחֵט לְהַזּוֹת מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר״ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל, שֶׁמַּחֲשָׁבָה בַּחוּץ בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים לֹא פִּיגֵּל. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּפְנִים, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי מַזֶּה עַל מְנָת לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִים וְלִשְׁפּוֹךְ שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל, שֶׁמַּחֲשָׁבָה בִּפְנִים בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ.

The baraita elaborates: How so? If he was standing outside when slaughtering the animal, and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood tomorrow inside the Sanctuary, he has not rendered the offering piggul . The reason is that in the case of an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed inside, one has not rendered the offering piggul . Likewise, if he was standing inside when sprinkling, and said: I hereby sprinkle the blood of the sin offering in order to burn its sacrificial portions on the external altar and to pour out its remainder on the base of the altar tomorrow, he has not rendered the offering piggul , as this is an intention inside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.

אֲבָל הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ, וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹחֵט לִשְׁפּוֹךְ שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״ אוֹ: ״לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִים לְמָחָר״ – פִּיגֵּל, שֶׁמַּחֲשָׁבָה בַּחוּץ בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ.

But if he was standing outside, and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of pouring out the remainder of its blood tomorrow, or to burn its sacrificial portions tomorrow, he has rendered the offering piggul , as this is an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַאי קְרָא? ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרָם מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״, וְכִי מַה לָּמַדְנוּ מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים מֵעַתָּה?

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the verse from which this is derived? The verse states with regard to the sacrificial portions of a bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, which is one of the bulls that are burned: “As it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering” (Leviticus 4:10). But what, then, do we learn from the bull of a peace offering? Everything that is specified with regard to a peace offering is stated with regard to this bull as well.

אֶלָּא: מַקִּישׁ פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ לְשׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים, מַה שּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים – עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מַעֲשָׂיו וּמַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, אַף פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ – עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו וּמַעֲשָׂיו עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.

Rather, the verse juxtaposes the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest with the bull of the peace offering: Just as the bull of the peace offering is not rendered piggul unless the priest’s actions and intentions relate to the service performed on the external altar, as that is where it is offered, so too, the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest is not rendered piggul unless the priest’s intentions and actions relate to the service performed on the external altar.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says his ruling in the name of Rabbi Yosei.

אֲמַר רָבָא:

Rava said: