Piggul
Parsha Pages Youth | April 08, 2025
Print This Article
View Original PDF

Piggul

Parsha Pages Youth | June 27, 2025

If (a person offers a sacrifice with the intention that) any of the meat of one's peace-offering is to be eaten on the third day, it will not be accepted; it will not count for the one who offers it, for it will be rejected, and the person who eats from it will bear (the consequences of) one's sin. (VaYikra 7,18)

The Oral Tradition explains that the verse refers to an offering which became invalid because of [improper] thought at the time of the offering, and this is what is called piggul. This negative mitzvah is very strange: according to Chaza"l the law of piggul is not what follows from the plain sense of the text; and the punishment of Kares only applies when done with the improper thought and not when done with an improper action.

VaYikra 7,18 as understood by Chaza"l

  • àßÕÞ àßÕÙ: Two possible types of consumption that could be the subject of the invalidating intent of this verse: consumption by a person, or consumption by the altar.
  • ÜÖÛ éêÖâ ÚÞâàê: Verse refers to the intent during the consumption by the altar. Further, the extra word ÜÖÛ alludes that all offerings are compatible to the peace-offering. Any offering that has the common characteristic of having components that can render the state of piggul (essential avodos) and other components that can become the subject of the invalidation of piggul (the remainder of the offering that could become permitted for consumption).
  • ÞêÞàêÙ: Intent to consume the offering beyond-its-time.
  • ÙçéÞ Õà: Implies the offering would be acceptable if not for the invalid thought; thus only becomes piggul if all other "permitters" are proper and done.
  • ÖÞéèâÙ: Only a piggul intent done during the essential (four basic) avodos can make a sacrifice piggul; however, actually eating (after the allotted time) does not invalidate the offering retroactively.
  • ÚëÕ: The offering becomes invalid but not the Kohen, who performed the avodah with a piggul intent, does not become disqualified from further service.
  • ÖêÜÞ Õà: Piggul can only take effect if it is the only improper intent, not mingled with other intentions.
  • ×åàÚ: Reference to intent of outside-its-place and invalidates the offering (but does not have the punishment of Kares).
  • ÙÞÙÞ: Use of the singular form teaches that two types of intent can invalidate the offering but only one makes piggul.
  • ëàßÕÙ êåäÙÚ ÙäÚæ Úäââ Õêë: Use of singular for "it" indicates the punishment of Kares ("bearing its sin") only results from one of the previous mentioned invalid thoughts. Which one? Intent beyond-its-time. Learn a gezeras shavah (sin sin) from Nossar that Kares applies to the one intent beyond-its-time that has more common characteristics.

THE SUBJECTS OF THE VERSES OF PIGGUL

Chaza”l (Zevachim 28-29) distinguishes the two verses as follows:

  • (A) THE "LONG VERSE" ("KERA ARICHA") (VAYIKRA 7:18)
  • (B) THE "SHORT VERSE" ("KERA KETZARAH") (VAYIKRA 19:7)

LAWS OF IMPROPER INTENTION

ÚäâÛà æÚÜ beyond-its-time (PIGGUL)

  1. A sacrifice that was slaughtered (or any of the other three essential Avodas involved in offering a sacrifice: Kabalas haDam, Holachas haDam, Zerikas haDam) with the intention of eating it or offering it Chutz liZemano (after its allotted time) becomes disqualified. Similarly, a Minchah that was offered (i.e. doing one of its essential Avodos) with intentions of offering it or of eating it after its allotted time becomes disqualified.
  2. It is forbidden to eat such a Korban, as the verse states, "If [the person offering the sacrifice plans] to eat it on the third day, [the sacrifice] will not be accepted. It is considered Piggul (putrid, rejected) and it will not be counted in his favor" (Vayikra 7:18).
  3. If a person eats a k'Zayis of Piggul b'Mezid (intentionally) after Hasra'ah (being forewarned), he is punished with Malkus (lashes); the Lav for eating Piggul is learned from the verse of the Milu'im (Shemos 29:34). If he was not given Hasra'ah, he is Chayav Kares. If he eats it b'Shogeg (unintentionally), he must bring a Korban Chatas (as with all sins for which one is liable to Kares b'Mezid) (Sefer HaChinuch Mitzvah #144.)

ÚâÚèâà æÚÜ outside-its-place

  1. A Korban that was slaughtered (or any of the other three main actions involved in offering a sacrifice: Kabalas haDam, Holachas haDam, Zerikas haDam) with the intention of eating it or offering it outside of the place designated for it becomes disqualified, and may not be eaten or offered on the Mizbeach. This is learned from the verse that repeats the prohibition of Chutz li'Zemano (slaughtering a Korban with the intention of eating or offering it after its allotted time).
  2. If a person intentionally eats from a Korban that was offered with the intention of Chutz li'Mekomo, he receives Malkus (lashes). If he eats from it unintentionally, he is exempt from bringing a Korban Chatas.

áêÙ ÞÚäê change of name

  1. During the offering such as a peace-offering (shelamim) thinking the animal to be consecrated as a sin-offering.
  2. This act does not invalidate the sacrifice qua sacrifice, although the owner has not discharged his obligation thereby, and he must redo it.

"V'im hei'o'cheil yei'o'cheil bayom hashlishi piggul hu lo yeirotzeh" - Rashi (Zevachim 28b) explains that this verse does not mean to teach us the invalidation of the sacrifice by virtue of thoughts of eating it beyond its prescribed time limit, known as "mach'shovas chutz lizmano," as that is already derived from Vayikrah 7,18. Rather it is discussing the person who is processing the sacrifice having in mind that it should be eaten beyond its prescribed physical boundaries, known as "mach'shovas chutz limkomo." This is alluded to from the verse itself. If we take the numeric value of this complete verse it exactly equals that of "B'chi'sheiv (with a Yud) chutz limkomo hakosuv hazeh medabeir." (Parp'ro'ose L'chochmah)

A Clue for the Kohen

On the surface the discussion of the halachos of piggul seem somewhat drawn out. How often would a Kohen actually ruin a korban by intending to sprinkle the blood outside the proscribed place or violate the terms of its offering in some other way?

The Yismach Moshe provides a penetrating answer. "As is well known, one of the main purposes of bringing sacrifices is that the sinner should contemplate his misdeeds. He must understand that if the animal is suffering due to his sin despite its having done no wrong, he will certainly suffer if he fails to repent. He must remember that HaShem created him and owes him nothing at all. Once he internalizes this he will certainly return from his sin.

His atonement was completed by the Kohanim eating from the sacrifice. It follows that if the owner failed to do teshuvah, the Kohanim were not allowed to eat the korban, since the integral point is missing. But how could they know if the owner had truly repented or not? This is the meaning behind the halachos of piggul. If the owner of the sacrifice did not repent, HaShem would send the Kohen a thought of eating the korban on the third day or the like so as to invalidate the sacrifice.

In this way, the Kohen and the owner of the sacrifice would both know that the teshuvah of the owner was not complete and that he was required to bring a new sacrifice after purifying his heart."

If (a person offers a sacrifice with the intention that) any of the meat of one's peace-offering is to be eaten on the third day, it will not be accepted; it will not count for the one who offers it, for it will be rejected, and the person who eats from it will bear (the consequences of) one's sin. (VaYikra 7,18)

The Oral Tradition explains that the verse refers to an offering which became invalid because of [improper] thought at the time of the offering, and this is what is called piggul. This negative mitzvah is very strange: according to Chaza"l the law of piggul is not what follows from the plain sense of the text; and the punishment of Kares only applies when done with the improper thought and not when done with an improper action.

VaYikra 7,18 as understood by Chaza"l

  • àßÕÞ àßÕÙ: Two possible types of consumption that could be the subject of the invalidating intent of this verse: consumption by a person, or consumption by the altar.
  • ÜÖÛ éêÖâ ÚÞâàê: Verse refers to the intent during the consumption by the altar. Further, the extra word ÜÖÛ alludes that all offerings are compatible to the peace-offering. Any offering that has the common characteristic of having components that can render the state of piggul (essential avodos) and other components that can become the subject of the invalidation of piggul (the remainder of the offering that could become permitted for consumption).
  • ÞêÞàêÙ: Intent to consume the offering beyond-its-time.
  • ÙçéÞ Õà: Implies the offering would be acceptable if not for the invalid thought; thus only becomes piggul if all other "permitters" are proper and done.
  • ÖÞéèâÙ: Only a piggul intent done during the essential (four basic) avodos can make a sacrifice piggul; however, actually eating (after the allotted time) does not invalidate the offering retroactively.
  • ÚëÕ: The offering becomes invalid but not the Kohen, who performed the avodah with a piggul intent, does not become disqualified from further service.
  • ÖêÜÞ Õà: Piggul can only take effect if it is the only improper intent, not mingled with other intentions.
  • ×åàÚ: Reference to intent of outside-its-place and invalidates the offering (but does not have the punishment of Kares).
  • ÙÞÙÞ: Use of the singular form teaches that two types of intent can invalidate the offering but only one makes piggul.
  • ëàßÕÙ êåäÙÚ ÙäÚæ Úäââ Õêë: Use of singular for "it" indicates the punishment of Kares ("bearing its sin") only results from one of the previous mentioned invalid thoughts. Which one? Intent beyond-its-time. Learn a gezeras shavah (sin sin) from Nossar that Kares applies to the one intent beyond-its-time that has more common characteristics.

THE SUBJECTS OF THE VERSES OF PIGGUL

Chaza”l (Zevachim 28-29) distinguishes the two verses as follows:

  • (A) THE "LONG VERSE" ("KERA ARICHA") (VAYIKRA 7:18)
  • (B) THE "SHORT VERSE" ("KERA KETZARAH") (VAYIKRA 19:7)

LAWS OF IMPROPER INTENTION

ÚäâÛà æÚÜ beyond-its-time (PIGGUL)

  1. A sacrifice that was slaughtered (or any of the other three essential Avodas involved in offering a sacrifice: Kabalas haDam, Holachas haDam, Zerikas haDam) with the intention of eating it or offering it Chutz liZemano (after its allotted time) becomes disqualified. Similarly, a Minchah that was offered (i.e. doing one of its essential Avodos) with intentions of offering it or of eating it after its allotted time becomes disqualified.
  2. It is forbidden to eat such a Korban, as the verse states, "If [the person offering the sacrifice plans] to eat it on the third day, [the sacrifice] will not be accepted. It is considered Piggul (putrid, rejected) and it will not be counted in his favor" (Vayikra 7:18).
  3. If a person eats a k'Zayis of Piggul b'Mezid (intentionally) after Hasra'ah (being forewarned), he is punished with Malkus (lashes); the Lav for eating Piggul is learned from the verse of the Milu'im (Shemos 29:34). If he was not given Hasra'ah, he is Chayav Kares. If he eats it b'Shogeg (unintentionally), he must bring a Korban Chatas (as with all sins for which one is liable to Kares b'Mezid) (Sefer HaChinuch Mitzvah #144.)

ÚâÚèâà æÚÜ outside-its-place

  1. A Korban that was slaughtered (or any of the other three main actions involved in offering a sacrifice: Kabalas haDam, Holachas haDam, Zerikas haDam) with the intention of eating it or offering it outside of the place designated for it becomes disqualified, and may not be eaten or offered on the Mizbeach. This is learned from the verse that repeats the prohibition of Chutz li'Zemano (slaughtering a Korban with the intention of eating or offering it after its allotted time).
  2. If a person intentionally eats from a Korban that was offered with the intention of Chutz li'Mekomo, he receives Malkus (lashes). If he eats from it unintentionally, he is exempt from bringing a Korban Chatas.

áêÙ ÞÚäê change of name

  1. During the offering such as a peace-offering (shelamim) thinking the animal to be consecrated as a sin-offering.
  2. This act does not invalidate the sacrifice qua sacrifice, although the owner has not discharged his obligation thereby, and he must redo it.

"V'im hei'o'cheil yei'o'cheil bayom hashlishi piggul hu lo yeirotzeh" - Rashi (Zevachim 28b) explains that this verse does not mean to teach us the invalidation of the sacrifice by virtue of thoughts of eating it beyond its prescribed time limit, known as "mach'shovas chutz lizmano," as that is already derived from Vayikrah 7,18. Rather it is discussing the person who is processing the sacrifice having in mind that it should be eaten beyond its prescribed physical boundaries, known as "mach'shovas chutz limkomo." This is alluded to from the verse itself. If we take the numeric value of this complete verse it exactly equals that of "B'chi'sheiv (with a Yud) chutz limkomo hakosuv hazeh medabeir." (Parp'ro'ose L'chochmah)

A Clue for the Kohen

On the surface the discussion of the halachos of piggul seem somewhat drawn out. How often would a Kohen actually ruin a korban by intending to sprinkle the blood outside the proscribed place or violate the terms of its offering in some other way?

The Yismach Moshe provides a penetrating answer. "As is well known, one of the main purposes of bringing sacrifices is that the sinner should contemplate his misdeeds. He must understand that if the animal is suffering due to his sin despite its having done no wrong, he will certainly suffer if he fails to repent. He must remember that HaShem created him and owes him nothing at all. Once he internalizes this he will certainly return from his sin.

His atonement was completed by the Kohanim eating from the sacrifice. It follows that if the owner failed to do teshuvah, the Kohanim were not allowed to eat the korban, since the integral point is missing. But how could they know if the owner had truly repented or not? This is the meaning behind the halachos of piggul. If the owner of the sacrifice did not repent, HaShem would send the Kohen a thought of eating the korban on the third day or the like so as to invalidate the sacrifice.

In this way, the Kohen and the owner of the sacrifice would both know that the teshuvah of the owner was not complete and that he was required to bring a new sacrifice after purifying his heart."

PDF Preview
View The Full Article (PDF)
Parsha Pages Youth | April 08, 2025