זבחים כז

זבחים כז

חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

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.

לְמָחָר – פָּסוּל. חָזַר וְחִישֵּׁב בֵּין חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ בֵּין חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

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.

וְאִי שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כִּמְקוֹמוֹ דָּמֵי, הַאי פָּסוּל?! פִּיגּוּל הוּא!

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?

אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: זְרִיקָה דְּשָׁרְיָא בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה – מַיְיתְיָא לִידֵי פִּיגּוּל, זְרִיקָה דְּלָא שָׁרְיָא בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה – לָא מַיְיתְיָא לִידֵי פִּיגּוּל.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְמָר זוּטְרָא: מְנָא לָךְ הָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו… פִּגּוּל יִהְיֶה״ – מִי שֶׁפִּיגּוּלוֹ גָּרַם לוֹ; יָצָא זֶה – שֶׁאֵין פִּיגּוּלוֹ גָּרַם לוֹ, אֶלָּא אִיסּוּר דָּבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לוֹ.

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.

אִי הָכִי, אִיפְּסוֹלֵי נָמֵי לָא לִיפְּסֵל!

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?

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּחְשֶׁבֶת הִינּוּחַ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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.

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם פָּסוּל מַמָּשׁ, וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כִּמְקוֹמוֹ דָּמֵי. וְלָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן שֶׁנָּתַן בִּשְׁתִיקָה, כָּאן שֶׁנָּתַן בַּאֲמִירָה.

§ 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.

תְּנַן: חִישֵּׁב לִיתֵּן אֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה; לְמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה עַד מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּחְשֶׁבֶת הִינּוּחַ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה כּוּ׳.

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.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי שֶׁנָּתַן בִּשְׁתִיקָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לָאו כִּמְקוֹמוֹ דָּמֵי. וְהָא דְּאִיכָּא דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, הָא דְּלֵיכָּא דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ.

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.

תְּנַן: פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

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.

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת? קַשְׁיָא.

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.

וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, מַאי אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם נָתַן בְּמַחְשָׁבָה – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

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.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – אִי שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לָאו כִּמְקוֹמוֹ דָּמֵי; לֶיהֱוֵי כִּי נִשְׁפַּךְ מִן הַכְּלִי עַל הָרִצְפָּה – וְיַאַסְפֶנּוּ!

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?

סָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר לֹא יַאַסְפֶנּוּ. דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה, לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה; שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן – לֹא יַאַסְפֶנּוּ. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה, לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה – שֶׁרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לֹא יַאַסְפֶנּוּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יַאַסְפֶנּוּ.

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.

וּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר לֹא יַאַסְפֶנּוּ.

And our mishna is in accordance with the statement of the one who says: He may not gather it up.

וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה – שֶׁלֹּא יַאַסְפֶנּוּ; וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה – הוֹאִיל וְדָמִים הָעֶלְיוֹנִים לְמַטָּה הֵן בָּאִין. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בַּנִּיתָּנִין לִפְנִים שֶׁנְּתָנָן בַּחוּץ, בַּחוּץ שֶׁנְּתָנָן לִפְנִים – שֶׁרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יַאַסְפֶנּוּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא יַאַסְפֶנּוּ.

And Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says: Everyone concedes with regard to the blood that is to be placed below the red line that if one placed it above the red line he may not gather it up again. And all the more so with regard to the blood that is to be placed above the red line that one placed below the red line, since the blood placed above the red line will eventually run down the side of the altar and reach below the red line. They disagree only with regard to the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary that one placed outside on the external altar, or blood that is to be placed outside that one placed inside, as Rabbi Yosei says: He may gather it up, as though it had spilled on the floor, and Rabbi Shimon says: He may not gather it up, because the blood was nevertheless placed on an altar.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״זֹאת הִיא הָעוֹלָה״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִיעוּטִין; פְּרָט לְנִשְׁחֲטָה בַּלַּיְלָה וְשֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ וְשֶׁיָּצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – אִם עָלְתָה תֵּרֵד.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: We learn in a baraita as well that if the blood is misapplied on the altar it may not be gathered, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Yehuda says that the verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up [ha’ola] on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that a disqualified offering that ascended upon the altar shall not descend from it. These terms, i.e., “this,” “it,” and “that,” are three terms of exclusion, which serve to exclude three cases of disqualified offerings from this halakha: An offering that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled, and one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., the Temple courtyard. In these cases, even if the offering ascended upon the altar it shall descend.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״עוֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלָה כְּשֵׁרָה; מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בַּלַּיְלָה, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ, וְשֶׁיָּצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, וְהַלָּן, וְהַיּוֹצֵא, וְהַטָּמֵא, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁחַט חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְשֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמָהּ, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין בִּפְנִים שֶׁנְּתָנָן בַּחוּץ, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין בַּחוּץ שֶׁנְּתָנָן בִּפְנִים, וְהַפֶּסַח וְהַחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – מִנַּיִן?

Rabbi Shimon says: From the term “burnt offering [ola]” I have derived only that a fit burnt offering shall not descend. From where is it derived that the halakha includes an offering that was slaughtered at night, or one whose blood was spilled, or one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, or one that was left overnight, or one that left the courtyard, or one that became impure, or one that was slaughtered with intent to consume it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, or an offering for which an unfit person collected and sprinkled its blood, or a case where one placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line below it, or where one placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above it, or where one placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside on the external altar, or where one placed the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside it, or a Paschal offering or a sin offering that one slaughtered not for their sake? From where is it derived that if these offerings ascended they shall not descend?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תּוֹרַת הָעוֹלָה״ – רִיבָּה תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכׇל הָעוֹלִין, שֶׁאִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.

The verse states: “The law of the burnt offering [ha’ola],” literally: That which goes up. The verse included under one law all items that ascend upon the altar, teaching that if they ascended the altar, they shall not descend.

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף הָרוֹבֵעַ, וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְהָאֶתְנַן, וְהַמְּחִיר, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵיפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת״.

One might have thought that I should include even an animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or an animal that was set aside for idol worship, or an animal that was worshipped as a deity, or an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, or an animal that is a tereifa, or an animal born by caesarean section. The verse therefore states: “This,” to exclude these animals from the halakha.

וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת אֵלּוּ וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ – שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ – שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ.

The Gemara asks: And what did you see as the reason to include the former cases and to exclude the latter ones? The Gemara responds: I include these former cases, whose disqualification occurred in sanctity, i.e., in the course of the Temple service, and I exclude these latter cases, whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity and were disqualified as offerings from the outset.

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא: הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה, וּלְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה – וְלָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי יְהוּדָה; מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקַלְטֵיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לֹא יַאַסְפֶנּוּ?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak continues: In any event, the baraita teaches that if one placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above it, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line below it, the offering does not descend from the altar. And Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree, even though he holds that if the blood spilled on the ground the offering descends from the altar. What is the reason for this? Is it not because even if the blood was misapplied, the altar has absorbed the blood and it is not considered to have been spilled on the floor? Conclude from it that if blood was misapplied on the altar, the priest may not gather it up again, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְקַדֵּשׁ פְּסוּלִין.

§ Pursuant to the discussion of disqualified offerings that do not descend from the external altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The inner altar, i.e., the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, sanctifies disqualified offerings such that if they ascended onto it, they do not descend.

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: הַנִּיתָּנִין בְּפָנִים כּוּ׳!

The Gemara asks: What is this statement teaching us? We already learn this in the above baraita: If one placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside on the external altar, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside it, on the golden altar, the offering does not descend.

אִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי דָּם – דַּחֲזֵי לֵיהּ; אֲבָל קוֹמֶץ, דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ – אֵימָא לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara responds: If one were to learn the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter applies only to blood mistakenly placed on the golden altar, as it is fit to be placed on that altar in certain contexts, i.e., the blood of the bull and goat sin offerings on Yom Kippur; but with regard to a handful from a meal offering, which is not fit to be placed on the golden altar in any context, I will say that it is not sanctified when placed on it. Rabbi Eliezer therefore teaches us that even a handful from a meal offering does not descend from it.

מֵיתִיבִי: קְטֹרֶת זָרָה (שעלה) [שֶׁעָלְתָה] לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – תֵּרֵד; שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מְקַדֵּשׁ פְּסוּלִין אֶלָּא מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן בְּרָאוּי לוֹ. חִיצוֹן אִין, פְּנִימִי לָא!

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If strange incense, i.e., incense that it is prohibited to burn on the golden altar, ascended onto the altar, it shall descend, as only the external altar sanctifies disqualified offerings that are suited for it. One can infer that the external altar does sanctify disqualified offerings, but the inner altar does not.

תָּרֵיץ הָכִי: קְטֹרֶת זָרָה שֶׁעָלְתָה לְמִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן – תֵּרֵד; שֶׁאֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן מְקַדֵּשׁ פְּסוּלִין אֶלָּא הָרָאוּי לוֹ, וְהַפְּנִימִי בֵּין רָאוּי לוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? הַאי רִצְפָּה, וְהַאי כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת.

The Gemara responds: Answer like this: The baraita means that if strange incense ascended onto the external altar, it shall descend, as the external altar sanctifies only disqualified offerings that are suited for it. But the inner altar sanctifies everything, whether it is suited for it or it is not suited for it. What is the reason for this? This, the external altar, is considered part of the floor, since it is fixed to the floor of the Temple, and that, the inner altar, is considered a service vessel with a higher level of sanctity.

מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ בַּחוּץ אוֹ מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ בַּחוּץ, לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרָיו בַּחוּץ אוֹ מִקְצָת אֵימוּרָיו בַּחוּץ, לֶאֱכוֹל בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּחוּץ אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִבְּשָׂרוֹ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת מֵעוֹר הָאַלְיָה בַּחוּץ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

MISHNA: With regard to one who slaughters the offering with intent to sprinkle its blood outside the Temple or to sprinkle part of its blood outside the Temple, to burn its sacrificial portions outside the Temple or to burn part of its sacrificial portions outside the Temple, to partake of its meat outside the Temple or to partake of an olive-bulk of its meat outside the Temple, or to partake of an olive-bulk of the skin of the tail outside the Temple, in all of these cases the offering is disqualified, and there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of it.

לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר, מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרָיו לְמָחָר אוֹ מִקְצָת אֵימוּרָיו לְמָחָר, לֶאֱכוֹל בְּשָׂרוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִבְּשָׂרוֹ לְמָחָר, אוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת מֵעוֹר הָאַלְיָה לְמָחָר – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

But if one had intent to sprinkle its blood the next day or part of its blood the next day, to burn its sacrificial portions the next day or to burn part of its sacrificial portions the next day, to partake of its meat the next day or to partake of an olive-bulk of its meat the next day, or to partake of an olive-bulk of the skin of the tail the next day, the offering is piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.

גְּמָ׳ סַבְרוּהָ: עוֹר אַלְיָה –

GEMARA: The students assumed that the skin of the tail