Or set your preferences to change how Hebrew/Aramaic is displayed.
דף ד,א גמרא
And, hey, The tanna teaches: If it brings others into the status lit: hands of piggul, should it itself not all the more so? Here, too, a prohibition brings it into the status lit: hands of piggul. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Didn't Ilfa say: The disagreement in this case is about two acts of service? For example, he said: Behold, I am slaughtering One sign i.e., one of the two parts of the neck that need to be sliced in the same gesture with the intent of consuming the meat outside its designated time and the second sign with the intent of consuming the meat outside its designated place But: In a single act of service everyone agrees lit: according to the whole world The thoughts behind the actions were combined and so the two signs were manifestations of a single thought So, here, The act of sprinkling will determine ??? whether the intention to do things improperly applied in a single act of service, or whether in two services If so, as regards the thanksgiving-offering also, we should say that we cannot determine whether or not it is disqualified until it is sprinkled. What does it mean when it says that the bread becomes holy? That it is invalid, and is to be destroyed by burning but not that it is subject to the laws of misappropriation. Let me say in support of him of R' Gidal: "Pigul is always subject to the laws of misappropriation" ??? source ??? Is it not the case that this is so even though the blood has been sprinkled? And that would support him. No. For he did not sprinkle the blood If he did not sprinkle the blood, what is there to say? Rather: In reality lit: In the world he sprinkled the blood, and this teaching is on the subject of an elevation-offering. If it's about an elevation-offering, This is obvious! For the entirety of it is for the One On High!
דף ד,ב גמרא
And furthermore, it is taught at the end If the blood sat overnight, even though he returned and sprinkled the blood the offering is subject to the laws of misappropriation. If you say, in reality, the case is that of a sin-offering, then the ruling is acceptable. But rather, if you say the case is that of an elevation-offering, it's necessary to say this. The end of the teaching supports him, But the beginning of the teaching, What? Just because that supports him? The end supports him, So, too, the beginning supports him? What is the difference with the case of "it sat overnight"? That it is the result of omitting an action of the hands. And so the sprinkling having been done improperly due to an action does not remove the offering from the status lit: hands of the laws of misappropriation. Thought is not like an action of the hands and so in the case of the sprinkling being accompanied by improper thoughts the sprinkling of the blood does remove the offering from the status lit: hands of the laws of misappropriation.
Let us say that this next teaching supports him Rabbi Gidal Pigul in the case of the holiest of holy offerings They are subject to the laws of misappropriation. Is this not even in the case where he sprinkled. And that would support him. No. Because he did not sprinkle. But: In a case where he sprinkled the blood --- What about in this case, too, is it not the case that it would not be subject to the laws of misappropriation? So why does the tanna teach at the end: in the case of simple-holiness offerings that have become pigul, the laws of misappropriation do not apply Let us distinguish two cases in the beginning of the teaching ??? Before the act of sprinkling, it is subject to the laws of misappropriation After the act of sprinkling, it is not subject to the laws of misappropriation This interpretation supports him R' Gidal Let us say, Because the end of the teaching would support him, the beginning of the teaching would also support him? Simple offerings he does distinguish the sub-cases Here, in this case, he does not distinguish them ===== A general principle: Rabbi Yehoshua said: Every offering that has an hour when it is permitted to the priests, we do not apply the laws of misappropriation to it. and every one that does not have an hour when it is permitted to the priests, We do apply the laws of misappropriation to it. Which are they that have an hour when it is permitted to the priests, That which sat overnight And that which became tamei, And that which was taken out from the Courtyard And which are they that do not have an hour when it is permitted to the priests, one whose slaughter involved the intention to consume its meat outside its designated time or outside its designated place And that whose blood was collected by invalid priests And they sprinkled its blood. Bar-Kapara said to Bar-Padat: Son of my sister, See what you are to ask me tomorrow in the House of Study: Do we teach that "permitted" means by "slaughter"?
Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.