| Today’s daf begins with a new mishnah on the subject of piggul, the term for a sacrifice (or element thereof) that becomes invalid because the priest offering it mistakenly intended to burn or eat some portion of it outside of its designated time. As we have learned, there are a number of ways in which sacrifices can go wrong, but not all mistakes are created equal. We know from a mishnah earlier in the tractate (Zevachim 2:2-3) that for a sacrifice to receive the status of piggul, at least one of its crucial steps must be done with this particular improper intention to eat or burn the sacrifice outside of the allotted time window. Other mistakes or improper intentions can cause a sacrifice to be invalid or forbidden to eat, but they cannot confer the specific status of piggul, which carries with it the severe punishment of karet for one who eats the meat. Today’s mishnah places further limits on this category, beginning with a list of sacrificial components that cannot be subject to piggul: These are the things for which one is not liable on account of piggul: the handful of flour (which permits consumption of the meal offering), the incense, the frankincense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, the blood, and the libations that are brought by themselves — this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the rabbis say: Even (libations) brought with an animal offering. The log of oil brought by a metzora, Rabbi Shimon says: One is not liable on account of piggul. And Rabbi Meir says: One is liable on account of piggul, as the blood of the guilt offering permits its use. This mishnah ends with a rule that explains the reasoning behind this list: Whatever has something else that makes it permitted, whether for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, one is liable on its account for piggul. According to this principle, any part of a sacrifice that can become piggul must be permitted by something else. For instance, the sprinkling of blood from a burnt offering permits its meat to be subsequently burned on the altar and its hide to be used by the priests. In this scenario, the meat and the hide can be subject to piggul status because they are permitted by means of something else: the blood. But the permitting substance — in this case, the blood — cannot itself take on the status of piggul. So too with the handful of flour from a meal offering: One handful of flour is first removed and burned on the altar, and this burning makes the rest of the flour permitted for subsequent consumption. According to our principle, the remainder of the flour can become piggul, but the initial handful cannot. The Gemara opens with a puzzling statement on this subject: Ulla says: A handful of a piggul meal offering that was offered up on the altar, its piggul status has left it. If this handful brings other items to a status of piggul, with regard to itself is it not all the more so? Ulla claims that the process of offering up a handful of a piggul meal offering on the altar, while forbidden, is nonetheless effective in removing its piggul status. His explanation is that the handful, if offered with the improper intention, has the ability to transform the rest of the offering into piggul. Shouldn’t it then have this transformative ability for itself as well? The Gemara notes that Ulla’s reasoning here does not actually explain why being (erroneously) offered on the altar has the ability to make the handful no longer piggul. It seems more like an argument for why the handful should be able to become piggul in the first place! In typical fashion, the Gemara immediately jumps into a series of efforts to finesse Ulla’s statement so that it both makes sense and is not redundant with other sources we already have. After a few attempts, they reach a satisfactory reinterpretation. But we are still left with a novel proposal: The claim that offering something problematic on the altar somehow removes its problematic status. This is not an obvious function of the altar. In this vein, the Gemara brings another surprising statement, this time from Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Yitzhak says in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Piggul, notar and ritually impure flesh that are brought on the altar, their prohibition has left them. Like Ulla, Rabbi Yohanan claims that by bringing one of these three problematic items on the altar, one removes their forbidden status. One shouldn’t bring these items on the altar in the first place, but once it’s already done, it is apparently effective in permitting them. Rav Hisda, shocked by this proposal, quips: Is the altar now a mikveh?! We generally understand that water — specifically water that meets the requirements of a mikveh — is the primary substance one turns to for ritual purification. Rav Hisda is resistant to the idea that fire should also be included in this function — he seems to feel that mikveh is unique in its ability to purify and that water and fire are not interchangeable in this equation. After a back and forth, Ravina concludes that we accept Rabbi Yohanan’s principle that the fire of the altar indeed has the ability to make impure meat permitted. However, mikveh still retains a unique ability: While the fire can only remove impurity by destroying some of the sacrifice, mikveh is able to purify a person while leaving us just as whole as we went in. Read all of Zevachim 43 on Sefaria. This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on October 27, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here. |
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
