Zevachim 44

The laws of piggul, a sacrifice that the priest intended to eat after its appointed time, are introduced in Leviticus 7 in the context of its discussion of the shelamim, the peace offering. According to Leviticus 7:18, “If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable; it shall not count for the one who offered it. It is an offensive thing, and the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.” 

Does that mean that only peace offerings are subject to the laws of piggul? Or can other types of sacrifices also become piggul?  

The sages taught in a beraita: Or perhaps (piggul) extends only to one similar to peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they are eaten for two days and one night, so too any (offering) eaten for two days and one night.

But if it is eaten for one day and night, from where do we learn (piggul)? “Of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering,” any whose remainder of flesh is eaten.

The rabbis read the first clause of Leviticus 18, “of the flesh,” as proof that any sacrifice whose flesh is eaten is subject to the laws of piggul. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz explains that this ruling means that sin offerings, guilt offerings and firstborn offerings can all become piggul if intended to be eaten after the appointed time. 

Next the beraita turns to offerings which are not eaten, like a burnt offering, which, as its name suggests, is burnt in its entirety on the altar. 

A burnt offering, whose remainder is not eaten, from where? The verse states: “Sacrifice.”

The rabbis read the verb “sacrifice” as referring specifically to animal slaughter. So the beraita now concludes that any animal offering which is ritually slaughtered  is subject to piggul. 

But what about offerings which do not involve ritual slaughter?

From where to include bird and meal offerings, until I include the log of oil of a leper? The verse states: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me, and that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2).

While the beraita derives the other cases of piggul from Leviticus 7:18, for bird and meal offerings the rabbis turn to a different biblical verse, one in which God charges Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous in dealing with people’s donations to God and the Tabernacle. What does this verse have to do with the laws of piggul specifically? To answer this question, the beraita offers a complicated gezerah shavah, verbal analogy: 

Notar is derived from profanation, and profanation of ritual impurity. And piggul is derived from iniquity and iniquity in notar. 

This is a complicated gezera shava so let’s unpack it. Leviticus 22:2, which commands the priests to treat carefully anything brought to the Tabernacle by the Israelites, uses the verb to profane (lechallel). That same verb is used in Leviticus 19, from which the rabbis learn the laws of notar, the parts of the sacrifice that remain  after the time for their consumption has passed. So we’ve connected notar to everything dedicated to the Temple. Then the rabbis link the two uses of the word iniquity (avon) in the laws of notar and piggul to link piggul back to Leviticus 22:2 in a chain of analogical interpretation. 

The beraita continues on, describing what all these sacrifices have in common and listing some items offered in the Temple which are actually not subject to the laws of piggul. But in the interest of time, let’s stop here to note that the sacrificial system not only values human intention, correct modes of slaughter and the power of animal life, but also roots these values in careful and creative readings of sacred text and in the awareness that the passage of time has real effects on what we can do — both physically and spiritually. 

Read all of Zevachim 43 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on October 28, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.