לְגוּפֵיהּ! אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא: ״בְּיוֹם זִבְחוֹ יֵאָכֵל״, ״הַקְרִיבוֹ״ לָמָּה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: בְּיוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ אַתָּה מַקְרִיב, בְּיוֹם שֶׁאִי אַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ – אִי אַתָּה מַקְרִיב.

for the matter itself, to teach that a peace offering may be eaten for only two days? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: On the day he slaughters it shall it be eaten, and the following day. Why do I need the verse to add the term “that he sacrifices it”? Conclude from the wording of the verse that on the day that you slaughter the offering you sacrifice the blood on the altar, but on a day that you do not slaughter the offering you do not sacrifice the blood on the altar.

וְדִילְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: אִי קָרֵיב דָּם הָאִידָּנָא – נִיתְאֲכֵיל בָּשָׂר הָאִידָּנָא וּלְמָחָר, אִי קָרֵיב דָּם לְמָחָר – נִיתְאֲכֵיל בָּשָׂר לְמָחָר וּלְיוֹמָא אוֹחֲרָא! אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא: ״בְּיוֹם הַקְרִיבוֹ יֵאָכֵל״, ״זִבְחוֹ״ לָמָּה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: בְּיוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ אַתָּה מַקְרִיבוֹ, בְּיוֹם שֶׁאִי אַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ – אִי אַתָּה מַקְרִיבוֹ.

The Gemara questions this proof: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying: If the blood is sacrificed today, i.e., the day the offering was slaughtered, the meat may be eaten today and tomorrow. If the blood is sacrificed tomorrow, the meat may be eaten tomorrow and the following day. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: On the day it is sacrificed it shall be eaten, and the following day. Why do I need the verse to state: “That he sacrifices his offering”? Conclude from the wording of the verse that on the day that you slaughter the offering you sacrifice the blood on the altar, but on a day that you do not slaughter the offering you do not sacrifice the blood on the altar.

אִיתְּמַר: הַמְחַשֵּׁב לְאוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי, חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: כָּשֵׁר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: פָּסוּל. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר כָּשֵׁר – דְּהָא לָא אִינְתִּיק לִשְׂרֵיפָה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: פָּסוּל – דְּהָא אִידְחֵי לֵיהּ מֵאֲכִילָה.

§ It was stated: With regard to one who slaughters a peace offer- ing and intends to eat it on the evening preceding the third day, Ḥizkiyya says: The offering is valid, and it is not disqualified due to his intention to eat it after its designated time [ piggul ]. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is disqualified. The Gemara explains: Ḥizkiyya says that the offering is valid because on the evening preceding the third day, the peace offering has not yet been removed from its previous status and designated for burning. A peace offering is not burned until the third morning, as the verse states: “It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the following day; and if anything remain until the third day, it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 19:6). Rabbi Yoḥanan says it is disqualified, because it has been rejected from being eaten.

הָאוֹכֵל לְאוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי, חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: פָּטוּר – דְּלָא אִינְתִּיק לִשְׂרֵיפָה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב – דְּהָא אִידְחֵי לֵיהּ מֵאֲכִילָה.

These two amora’im have the same dispute concerning a similar matter: With regard to one who eats a peace offering on the evening preceding the third day, Ḥizkiyya says: He is exempt from karet , because the offering has not yet been removed from its previous status and designated for burning. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is liable to receive karet , because it has been rejected from being eaten.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קֳדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד – מְחַשְּׁבִין בְּדָמָן מִשֶּׁתִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה, וּבִבְשָׂרָן וּבְאֵימוּרֵיהֶן – מִשֶּׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר. קֳדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אַחַת – מְחַשְּׁבִין בְּדָמָן מִשֶּׁתִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה, וּבְאֵימוּרֵיהֶן מִשֶּׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, וּבִבְשָׂרָן מִשֶּׁתִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה שֶׁל שְׁנֵי יָמִים.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to sacrificial animals that may be eaten for one day, if one intends to present their blood after sunset, or if one intends to eat their meat or to sacrifice their sacrificial portions after the first rays of dawn, the offering is considered to be piggul and is disqualified. With regard to sacrificial animals that may be eaten for two days and one night, if one intends to present their blood after sunset, or if one intends to sacrifice their sacrificial portions after the first rays of dawn, or if one intends to eat their meat after sunset following the second of the two days, the offering is considered to be piggul and is disqualified.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל יְהוּ נֶאֱכָלִין לְאוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי. וְדִין הוּא: זְבָחִים נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד וּזְבָחִים נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים, מַה זְּבָחִים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד – לַיְלָה אַחֲרֵיהֶן, אַף זְבָחִים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים – לַיְלָה אַחֲרֵיהֶן!

The Gemara cites another baraita on this topic. The Sages taught: One might have thought that peace offerings, which may be eaten for two days, may also be eaten on the evening preceding the third day. And this is the conclusion of a logical inference: Other offerings, e.g., thanks offerings, are eaten for one day, and peace offerings are eaten for two days. Just as with regard to offerings that are eaten for one day, the night follows the previous day, i.e., the offering may be eaten during the day and the subsequent night, so too, with regard to peace offerings that are eaten for two days, say that the night follows the day, and rule that they may be eaten on the night after the second day.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַנּוֹתָר עַד יוֹם״ – בְּעוֹד יוֹם הוּא נֶאֱכָל, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל לְאוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי.

To counter this logic, the verse states: “And when you sacrifice a peace offering to God, you shall sacrifice it of your own will. It shall be eaten the same day you sacrifice it, and on the next day; and if any remains until the third day, it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 19:5–6). This teaches that it may be eaten while it is still daytime, i.e., during the second day, but it may not be eaten on the evening preceding the third day.

יָכוֹל יִשָּׂרֵף מִיָּד? וְדִין הוּא: זְבָחִים נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וּזְבָחִים נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים, מַה זְּבָחִים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד – תֵּיכֶף לַאֲכִילָה שְׂרֵיפָה, אַף זְבָחִים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים – תֵּיכֶף לַאֲכִילָה שְׂרֵיפָה!

The baraita continues: If a peace offering may not be eaten beyond the second day, one might have thought that it should be burned immediately after the conclusion of the second day, and this too is the conclusion of a logical inference: Other offerings are eaten for one day, and peace offerings are eaten for two days. Just as with regard to offerings that are eaten for one day, immediately after the conclusion of their permitted time for eating should their burning commence, on the morning of the second day, so too, with regard to peace offerings that are eaten for two days say that immediately after the conclusion of their permitted time for eating should their burning commence, at night after the second day.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בָּאֵשׁ יִשָּׂרֵף״, בַּיּוֹם אַתָּה שׂוֹרְפוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה שׂוֹרְפוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה.

To counter this logic, the verse states: “And if any remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day, it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 7:17), meaning: You must burn it during the day, but you may not burn it during the night.

מתני׳ הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַפֶּסַח קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים; שְׁחִיטָתָן בְּכָל מָקוֹם בָּעֲזָרָה, וְדָמָן טָעוּן מַתָּנָה אַחַת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן כְּנֶגֶד הַיְּסוֹד.

The firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires one placement, provided that the priest places it so that the blood goes on the base of the altar.

שִׁינָּה בַּאֲכִילָתָן: הַבְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר לְכָל אָדָם, וְנֶאֱכָלִין בְּכָל הָעִיר, בְּכָל מַאֲכָל, לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד. הַפֶּסַח אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא בַּלַּיְלָה, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא עַד חֲצוֹת, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא לִמְנוּיָו, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא צָלִי.

The halakha differs with regard to their consumption. The firstborn offering is eaten by the priests, and the animal tithe offer- ing is eaten by any person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew. And they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night. The Paschal offering is eaten only at night, and it is eaten only until midnight, and it is eaten only by its registrants, i.e., those who registered in advance to partake of the offering, and it is eaten only roasted, not prepared in any other manner.

גמ׳ מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״חֶלְבּוֹ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא: ״חֶלְבָּם״, ״דָּמוֹ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא: ״דָּמָם״, לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר וּפֶסַח שֶׁטְּעוּנִין מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.

Who is the tanna who taught that the blood of these offerings is placed, not poured, so that it goes on the base of the altar? Rav Ḥisda says that it is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The verse states: “But the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred; you shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and you shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Numbers 18:17). It is not stated: Its fat, but rather: “Their fat.” Similarly, it is not stated: Its blood, but rather: “Their blood.” This teaches with regard to a firstborn offering, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, which are similar in their sanctity to a firstborn offering, that they all require placement of their blood and the burning of their sacrificial portions on the altar.

כְּנֶגֶד הַיְּסוֹד מְנָא לָן? אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: אָתְיָא זְרִיקָה זְרִיקָה מֵעוֹלָה,

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that their blood must be placed so that it goes on the base of the altar? Rabbi Eliezer says: This is derived by way of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of the word “sprinkling” stated here derived from the meaning of the word “sprinkling” stated with regard to a burnt offering.