[א] "וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל…בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לֹא יֵרָצֶה" – אמר ר' אליעזר, כוף אזניך לשמוע שהשוחט את זבחו על מנת לאכלו ביום השלישי הרי זה ב-'לא ירצה'. אמר רבי עקיבא שומע אני "וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לֹא יֵרָצֶה" – אם אכל ממנו ביום השלישי יהיה פסול, ואי אפשר לומר כן! מאחר שהוכשר יחזור ויפסל?! הן?! אם מצינו בזב וזבה ושומרת יום כנגד יום שהן בחזקת טהרה, וכשראו – סתרו; אף זה, שהיה בחזקת היתר, אם אכל ממנו ביום השלישי יהיה פסול! תלמוד לומר "המקריב" – בשעת הקרבה הוא נפסל ואינו נפסל ביום השלישי 1) (Vayikra 7:18) ("And if there be eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings on the third day, it shall not be accepted. He that offers it shall not bethink himself. It shall be piggul ("rejected"), and the soul that eats of it shall bear his sin.") "And if there be eaten … on the third day, it shall not be accepted": R. Eliezer said: Incline your ear to hear: (Scripture is speaking not of actual eating, but of thinking, i.e.,) "If one thinks to eat of his sacrifice on the third day, it shall not be accepted." R. Akiva said: I would understand the verse (literally) as meaning that if he (actually) ate of it on the third day it becomes unfit. — But it is impossible to say this. For after it has been validated (by the priestly service), can it then become unfit? — Yes, (indeed it may)! For we find in respect to a zav (a man with a genital emission) or a zavah (a woman with a genital emission), or a woman who watches a day (without emission) against a day (of emission), that when they are in a state of taharah (ritual cleanliness) and (again) witness an emission, they annul (that state of taharah) — this (offering), too, if he ate of it on the third day, it becomes unfit. It is, therefore, written (to negate this,) "he that offers" — It is at the time of offering (with wrong intent) that it becomes unfit, and not on the third day (when it is eaten).
[ב] או אינו אומר 'המקריב' אלא זה כהן המקריב… תלמוד לומר "אֹתוֹ" – בזבח הוא מדבר ולא בכהן. 2) But perhaps it could be contended that "he that offers" is none other than the officiating Cohein (i.e., that he is disqualified from future service)! It is, therefore, written ("he that offers) it" — It is the offering that is being referred to and not the Cohein.
[ג] בן עזאי אומר מה תלמוד לומר "אֹתוֹ"? לפי שנאמר (דברים כג, כב) "כי תדור נדר לה' אלקיך לא תאחר לשלמו" – יכול המאחר נדרו ב-'לא ירצה'? תלמוד לומר "אֹתוֹ" – אותו ב-'לא ירצה' ואין מאחר נדרו ב-'לא ירצה'. אחרים אומרים "לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב" – במחשבה היא נפסל ואין נפסל בשלישי. 3) Ben Azzai says: What is the intent of "it" (above)? Because it is written (Devarim 23:22): "If you make a vow to the L–rd your G d, you shall not delay to pay it," I might think that if he does delay his vow he is in transgression of "It shall not be accepted"; it is, therefore, written: "It (the offering in our instance) shall not be accepted, but one who delays his vow is not in transgression of "It shall not be accepted." Others say: (It is written (here): "He shall not bethink himself." It (the offering) becomes unfit by thinking (to eat it on the third day), but it does not become unfit by delaying (its sacrifice) beyond three festivals.
[ד] יכול אין מחשבה פוסלת אלא בזריקה; מנין לרבות שחיטה וקבלת הדם? תלמוד לומר 'אם האכל יאכל…' – לרבות שחיטה וקבלת הדם. יכול שאני מרבה שירי הדם והקטר חלבים ואכילת בשר? תלמוד לומר "המקריב" – זריקה בכלל היתה, למה יצאת? להקיש אליה! מה זריקה מיוחדת שמעכב כפרה – אף אני מרבה שחיטה וקיבול הדם שמעכבים את הכפרה, ומוציא אני את שירי הדם והקטרת חלבים ואכילת בשר שאין מעכבים את הכפרה. 4) I might think that "bethinking" (above) renders it unfit only if he has such a thought at the sprinkling of the blood. Whence do I derive (that it is similarly invalidated by such thought at the time of) slaughtering or receiving of the blood? From (the redundant) "eaten, eaten" — to include (all the preliminaries to "eating," such as) slaughtering and receiving the blood. I might think to include (as invalidating the offering, such thought at the time of disposing of) the left-over blood and the burning of the fats. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "he that offers it," (i.e., he that sprinkles the blood). Sprinkling was in the class (of all the sacrificial services). Why was it singled out for special mention? To make it the basis of a comparison, viz.: Just as sprinkling is characterized by its being a sacrificial service upon which atonement is contingent, so I include ([for piggul rejection] such thought at the time of) slaughtering and receiving the blood, upon which atonement is contingent — and I exclude (from piggul rejection such thought at the time of disposing of) the left-over blood and the burning of the fats, upon which atonement is not contingent.
[ה] רבי מאיר אומר מחשבה פוסלת בהילוך; שאי אפשר לעבודה בלא הילוך. ור' שמעון אמר אין מחשבה בהילוך. שאי אפשר לעבודה שלא בשחיטה ושלא בקבלה ושלא בזריקה אבל אפשר לה שלא בהילוך. שוחט בצד המזבח וזורק. ר' אלעזר אומר המהלך במקום שצריך להלך – המחשבה פוסלת. מקום שאין צריך להלך – אין מחשבה פוסלת. שאין מחשבה פוסלת אלא בדבר הכשר לעבודה ובמי שראוי לעבודה ובמקום שהוא כשר לעבודה. 5) R. Meir says: It (piggul thought) at the time of hiluch ("leading" the blood from the azarah to the altar) invalidates (the offering), the sacrificial service being impossible without hiluch. And R. Shimon says: There is no (invalidating piggul) thought in hiluch. For the priestly service is impossible without slaughtering, receiving (of the blood), or sprinkling, but it is possible without hiluch — he can slaughter on the side of the altar and fling (the blood upon it). R. Elazar says: If one "leads" (the blood) in a place where he must lead, (piggul) thought invalidates; in a place where he need not lead, (piggul) thought does not invalidate. (Piggul) thought invalidates only something which may serve as an offering per se (and not something which serves some other function), and (obtains only) with one who is fit for the priestly service (and not with a Cohein who is blemished), and only in a place which is fit for the priestly service, (as when the altar is intact, and not when it is defective).
[ו] יכול אין מחשבה פוסלת אלא באכילת בשר; מנין לרבות זריקה והקטר חלבים ושפיכת שירים? תלמוד לומר 'אם האכל יאכל' – אכילה לאדם ואכילה למזבח. 6) I would think that (piggul) thought invalidates only in respect to the eating of flesh (out of its time). Whence do I derive the same for sprinkling, burning of fats, and (disposal of) left-over (blood out of its time)? From (the redundant) "eaten, eaten" — There is "eating" for a man (the eating of flesh) and "eating" for the altar.
[ז] למדנו לזבחים הנאכלים לשני ימים שמחשבה פוסלת בהם בשלישי; מנין לזבחים הנאכלים ליום אחד? ודין הוא! זבחים נאכלים לשני ימים וזבחים נאכלים ליום אחד. מה זבחים הנאכלים לשני ימים – מחשבה פוסלת בהם, אף זבחים הנאכלים ליום אחד – מחשבה פוסלת בהם בשני! דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנידון! מה אלו לשלשה אף אלו שלשה! 7) We learned of sacrifices that may be eaten for two days that a thought (to eat of them) on the third day invalidates them. Whence do we derive the same for sacrifices that may be eaten for one day? It follows by induction, viz.: Sacrifices are eaten for two days and sacrifices are eaten for one day. Just as with sacrifices eaten for two days, a (piggul) thought invalidates them, so with sacrifices eaten for one day, a (piggul) thought (to eat them) on the second day invalidates them. — But "it suffices that what is derived by induction be as that which it is derived from" — Just as the former (invalidates only) on the third day, so the latter should invalidate only on the third day, (and not on the second)!
[ח] אני אדיננו דין אחר: זבחים נאכלים ליום אחד, זבחים נאכלים לשני ימים. מה זבחים הנאכלים לשני ימים – אחר זמן אכילתן מחשבה פוסלת בהם בשלישי, אף זבחים הנאכלים ליום אחד – תהא מחשבה פוסלת בהם בשני אחר זמן אכילתם! 8) I will derive it otherwise, viz.: Some sacrifices are eaten on one day and some sacrifices are eaten on two days. Just as sacrifices which are eaten on two days are invalidated by a (piggul) thought to eat them on the third day after their eating time, so sacrifices which are eaten on one day are invalidated by a (piggul) thought to eat them on the second day after their eating time.
[ט] הין?! אם פסלת מחשבה בשלישי – שאין כשר לאכילת כל זבח, תפסול מחשבה בשני שהוא כשר לאכילת קדשים קלים?! תלמוד לומר "וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו" – לרבות זבחים הנאכלים ליום אחד שתהא מחשבה פוסלת בהם בשני. 9) Now, if you have invalidated (a sacrifice) by a (piggul) thought (to eat it) on the third day, which is not kasher for the eating of any sacrifice, would you thereby invalidate (a sacrifice) by a (piggul) thought (to eat it) on the second day, which is kasher for the eating of holy of holies! It is, therefore, written (in negation of this argument): "if eaten eaten" — to include sacrifices eaten for one day for invalidation by a (piggul) thought to eat them on the second day.