Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16

We have already explained1 that when a person has a disqualifying intent with regard to the place [a sacrifice will be offered or eaten] while performing one of the four [specified] services,2 the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul. If he had a disqualifying intent with regard to the time [the sacrifice would be offered or eaten], it is piggul.

When does the above apply? When no other intent is combined together with the intent concerning time. If, however, an intent concerning the place - or with regard to the Paschal sacrifice or a sin-offering, an intent concerning the type of sacrifice3 - was combined with the intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul.4

What is implied? If one slaughtered, received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time or [even if] he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time while [perfoming] one of these services and his intent was proper or he had no intent while performing the other services, [the sacrifice] was piggul. If, however, one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place or slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.5

Similarly, if a Paschal sacrifice or sin-offering were slaughtered for a different purpose, but one received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, or one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] for a different purpose, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.

The same principles apply with regard to offerings of fowl and meal-offerings. The term piggul applies only when a sacrifice is disqualified because of an intent concerning time, without a [disqualifying] intent concerning place combined with it, neither at the outset or at the end, nor is an intent concerning the type of sacrifice combined with it with regard to those sacrifices that are disqualified when offered for a different purpose.

When, while performing one or all of the four services, a person has the intent to eat6 an olive-sized portion of a substance that is fit to be eaten7 outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and an olive-sized portion on the following day;

an olive-sized portion on the following day and an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],8

half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and half an olive-sized portion on the following day, or

half an olive-sized portion on the following day and half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],9 the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. Similarly, if one combined another disqualifying intent regarding offering [a sacrifice with one regarding time, the sacrifice] is disqualified, but not piggul.

If one had the intent to eat or to offer half an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place and to eat or to offer an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [This applies] whether the [disqualifying] intent concerning the olive-sized portion was first or last. [The rationale is that] half an olive-sized portion is not significant in relation to an olive-sized portion.10

If he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and a [disqualifying] intent concerning place with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, and then a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, [the sacrifice] is piggul.11

Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and then a [disqualifying] intent with regard to an olive-sized portion: with regard to half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, and with regard to the other half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, [the sacrifice] is piggul.12

If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the lower portion [of the altar] on the upper portion [of the altar] or he had an intent to present [blood] that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion [of the altar] or the like, [these] intents that do not disqualify [a sacrifice], as explained;13 if one combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul.14 If he combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning place alone,15 [the sacrifice] is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.

If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,

[an intent] to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,

he had an intent to present blood that should be presented in the Sanctuary on the outer altar on the following day, or

he had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the outer altar in the Sanctuary on the following day, [the sacrifice] is not piggul. Even though he had an intent concerning the time, since he changed the place where the blood was presented in his mind, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but is not piggul.16

Since we have explained in these halachot17 that when blood is presented in a place other than the desired place, it is considered as if it was presented in the desired place, why is [the sacrifice] not considered as piggul because of this intent to present the blood outside of its desired place on the following day? [The rationale is that] even though the sacrifice is acceptable, since the blood was not presented in its proper place, it does not cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, as we explained.18 [There is a general principle:] In any situation where blood is cast upon [the altar, but it] does cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, if one had the intent to present it at a time [after the prescribed time], it is not piggul. Therefore, [in the circumstances mentioned above,] if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to this sacrifice, it is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.

If a person had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he took [the handful of flour from a meal-offering], but did not have such an intent at the time he collected the frankincense or he had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he collected the frankincense, but did not have such an intent at the time he took [the handful of flour, the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul.19 [An offering becomes piggul] only when one has a disqualifying intent with regard to all [the substances which] cause it to be permitted [to be eaten], i.e., the handful of meal and the frankincense, at the time the handful is taken and the frankincense is collected, or when they are both placed into a sacred utensil, brought [to the altar], or cast [upon its pyre].

If at the time he cast the handful [of meal] on the altar's pyre, he had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day, it is not piggul, because an intent to offer something on the altar's pyres while offering something else on the pyre does not cause the offering to be piggul.20 Similarly, if one offered only the frankincense or only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to eat the remainder on the following day, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that a disqualifying intent involving only] half [the substances which] cause an offering to be permitted [to be eaten], does not cause it to be considered as piggul.

If, [by contrast,] one offered only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day and afterwards offered the frankincense and had the intent to partake of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for the [disqualifying] intent concerning time has spread throughout the entire meal-offering.21

If one offered a portion of the handful [of meal] the size of a sesame seed together with the frankincense with the intent that he eat a sesame seed-sized portion of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [even if] he continues offering the entire handful [of meal] with the frankincense with [the same disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that] even though eating little by little is an ordinary manner of eating,22 this is not the ordinary manner in which entities are offered on the altar. Instead, it is like a meal-offering whose handful was not offered on the altar's pyre.23

When there was frankincense placed on the meal-offering of a sinner or that of a sotah24 and one had a [disqualifying] intent involving time before the frankincense was removed, [the offerings] are disqualified, but are not piggul.25 If after he collected the frankincense he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the offering, it is piggul.26

If the remaining portion [of a meal-offering] was diminished between the time the handful was taken and it was offered on the altar and then the handful was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, there is a doubt whether it was established [as fit to become] piggul27 and thus it is piggul or it was not established28 and it is not piggul.