שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל פִּגּוּל – שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל הַפִּגּוּל. וּפִגּוּל הוּא קָרְבָּן שֶׁחָשַׁב עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב מַחְשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל בִּשְׁעַת זְבִיחָה אוֹ הַקְרָבָה. וּפְסוּל הַמַּחְשָׁבָה הוּא כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִסְכִּים בְּדַעְתּוֹ בְּעֵת הַזְּבִיחָה אוֹ בְּעֵת הַהַקְרָבָה שֶׁיֹּאכַל מֵאוֹתוֹ קָרְבָּן אַחַר זְמַן הַמֻּגְבָּל לַאֲכִילָתוֹ, אוֹ יַקְטִיר מִמֶּנּוּ מַה שֶׁטָּעוּן הַקְטָרָה אַחַר זְמַן הַמֻּגְבָּל לְהַקְטָרָה, שֶׁאֲכִילַת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וַאֲכִילַת אָדָם הַכֹּל נִשְׁמָע בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה. וּבֵאֵר הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁהָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁיִּשָּׂא עָוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז יח) וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל וכו' וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת מִמֶּנּוּ עֲוֹנָהּ תִּשָּׂא, וּנְשִׂיאַת הֶעָוֹן בְּכָאן הוּא כָּרֵת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּלְמַד בַּגְּמָרָא (זבחים כח ב) בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה. To not eat piggul: To not eat piggul — and piggul is a sacrifice that the priest who is sacrificing it had a disqualifying thought at the time of the slaughter or offering. And a disqualifying thought is, for example, that he made up his mind at the time of the slaughter or offering that he would eat from that sacrifice after the limit for its eating or burn from it that which requires burning after the time limit for burning — as the “eating” of the altar and the eating of a person is all expressed by eating. And the verse elucidated, that one who eats from it carries his iniquity, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:18), “And if it is surely eaten, etc. and the soul who eats from it shall carry its iniquity.” And the carrying of iniquity here is excision, as we shall learn in the Gemara (Zevachim 28b) through an inferential comparison (gezerah shava).
וְאוּלָם אַזְהָרָתוֹ כְּלוֹמַר הַלָּאו הַמְפֹרָשׁ עַל זֶה מִלְּבַד הָעֹנֶשׁ שֶׁנִּזְכַּר בְּכָאן, הוּא מָה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּמִּלּוּאִים (שמות כט לד) לֹא יֵאָכֵל כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הוּא. וְאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (פסחים כד א) שֶׁאוֹתוֹ הַכָּתוּב כּוֹלֵל בְּאַזְהָרָה כָּל מָה שֶׁנִּפְסַד מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים וְאֵין רָאוּי לְאָכְלוֹ כְּמוֹ הַנּוֹתָר וְהַפִּגּוּל. וּכְמוֹ כֵן אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (ע"ז סו א) שֶׁנִּכְלְלוּ בְּאַזְהָרַת (דברים יד ג) לֹא תֹאכַל כָּל תּוֹעֵבָה שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ (חולין קיד ב) כֹּל שֶׁתִּעַבְתִּי לָךְ הֲרֵי הוּא בְּבַל תֹּאכַל. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכֵּן, נֹאמַר שֶׁהָאֶחָד לְתוֹסֶפֶת לָאוִין, וְזֶה הַפָּסוּק שֶׁבְּכָאן יְדַבֵּר בְּעֹנֶשׁ הָאוֹכְלוֹ שֶׁכֵּן בָּא לָנוּ הַפֵּרוּשׁ עָלָיו. וְזֶה שֶׁאָמַר (ויקרא ז יח) וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁחָשַׁב עָלָיו לְאָכְלוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁכֵּן דָּרְשׁוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (זבחים כט א) וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל וכו' פִּגּוּל הוּא, כֹּף אָזְנְךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ בִּמְחַשֵּׁב עַל זִבְחוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁהוּא נִפְסָד בְּזֹאת הַמַּחְשָׁבָה. וְהָאוֹכְלוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת מִמֶּנּוּ עֲוֹנָהּ תִּשָּׂא. וְנֶאֱמַר בַּנּוֹתָר (שם יט ח) וְאֹכְלָיו עֲוֹנוֹ יִשָּׂא כִּי אֶת קֹדֶשׁ יְיָ חִלֵּל וְנִכְרְתָה, וְגָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ בִּכְרֵתוֹת בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ שָׁם (ה א) אַל תְּהִי גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה קַלָּה בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שֶׁהֲרֵי פִּגּוּל אֶחָד מִגּוּפֵי הַתּוֹרָה וְלֹא לִמְּדוֹ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, דְּיָלֵף עָוֹן עָוֹן מִנּוֹתָר מָה לְהַלָּן כָּרֵת אַף כָּאן כָּרֵת. And yet its warning — meaning to say, the explicit negative commandment, besides the punishment that is mentioned here — is from that which is written in the inauguration [of the tabernacle], “it shall not be eaten, as it is holy” (Exodus 29:34). And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesachim 24a) that this verse includes in its warning all that which has been spoiled of the [sacrifices] and is not fitting to eat, like notar and piggul. And likewise did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Avodah Zarah 66a) that they are included in the warnings, “You shall not eat any abomination” (Deuteronomy 14:3) — which they expounded (Chullin 114b), “Anything that is abominable for me, is forbidden to eat.” And since this is so, we shall say that [that warning (negative commandment) is to make one liable for] additional negative commandments; and the verse here is speaking about the punishment of the one who eats it, as so did the explanation come about it. And that which it stated (Leviticus 7:18), “If it shall surely be eaten on the third day,” is meaning to say that he thought about it to eat it on the third day. As so did they, may their memory be blessed, expound (Zevachim 29a), “‘And if it shall surely be eaten, etc.’ — that is piggul.” Bend your ear to hear that the verse is speaking about one who thinks to eat his sacrifice on the third day, that it is spoiled with this thought. And one who eats it is liable for excision, as it is stated about it, “and the soul that eats from it will carry his iniquity.” And it is stated about notar (Leviticus 19:8), “And the one who eats it will carry his iniquity, as he has profaned the holy of the Lord, and he shall be excised.” And we learned [about] it in Keritot 5a, “Let not an inferential comparison (gezerah shava) be light in your eyes; as behold piggul is one of the [important] bodies of Torah, and Scripture only taught it through a gezerah shava.” [As we learn it] from notar, from [the use of] “iniquity” [in both cases] — “just like there it is excision, here too it is excision.”
מִשָּׁרְשֵׁי מִצְוָה זוֹ. הַיְּסוֹד אֲשֶׁר בָּנִינוּ תְּחִלָּה שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ כִּי עִנְיְנֵי הַקָּרְבָּן לְהַכְשִׁיר מַחְשְׁבוֹת בְּנֵי אִישׁ וּלְצַיֵּר בְּנַפְשָׁם מִתּוֹךְ הַפְּעֻלָּה שֶׁבֵּין יָדָם רֹעַ הַחֵטְא וְטוּב דַּרְכֵי הַיֹּשֶׁר, עַל כֵּן מִהְיוֹת עִקַּר סִבָּתוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר הַמַּחְשָׁבוֹת הָיָה רָאוּי לְהִפָּסֵל בְּמַחְשָׁבָה הַנְּטוּיָה בּוֹ מִן הַיֹּשֶׁר בְּכָל מַעֲשָׂיו. וְזֶה דָּבָר בָּרוּר קָרוֹב אֶל הַשֵּׂכֶל לַמּוֹדֶה עַל הָאֱמֶת. From the roots of this commandment is the foundation that we have built at first — as we have said that the matter of the sacrifice is to refine the thoughts of people; and through the acts in their hands to fashion in their souls the evil of sin and the good of straight paths. Therefore since the main cause of [a] matter is thoughts, it is fit to disqualify on account of a thought that leans away from that which is straight in any of his deeds. And this thing is clear, close to the intellect and ancillary of truth.
מִדִּינֵי הַמִּצְוָה. מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (זבחים מג א) שֶׁאֵין חִיּוּב כָּרֵת אֶלָּא לְאוֹכֵל מִן הַקָּרְבָּן הַחֵלֶק שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ לָאָדָם אוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִמֶּנּוּ. אֲבָל מִן הַחֵלֶק מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁמַּתִּיר הַקָּרְבָּן אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל. כֵּיצַד? הָאוֹכֵל כַּזַּיִת מִן הַדָּם מִקָּרְבָּן שֶׁנִּתְפַּגֵּל אֵין חַיָּב עָלָיו כָּרֵת מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל שֶׁהֲרֵי הַדָּם הַחֵלֶק הַמַּתִּיר הַקָּרְבָּן הוּא, שֶׁאַחַר זְרִיקַת הַדָּם הָאֵמוּרִין מֻתָּרִין לִקָּרֵב וְלֹא קֹדֶם לָכֵן, וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת לוֹקִין עָלָיו. אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל כַּזַּיִת מִן בְּשַׂר הַקָּרְבָּן אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ מִן הָאֵמוּרִין חַיָּב כָּרֵת מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, שֶׁהַדָּם הוּא הַמַּתִּיר הָאֵמוּרִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְאַחַר מַתִּיר רִאשׁוֹן אָנוּ הוֹלְכִין בְּדִין זֶה לְחַיֵּב הָאוֹכֵל בְּכָל הַשְּׁאָר, וּלְפִיכָךְ חַיָּב הָאוֹכֵל אַף מִן הָאֵמוּרִין. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן גַּם כֵּן מַתִּירִין הַבָּשָׂר לָאָדָם אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם, שֶׁאַחַר הַדָּם שֶׁהוּא מַתִּיר רִאשׁוֹן אָנוּ הוֹלְכִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Zevachim 43a) that the liability of excision is only for one that eats that part of the sacrifice which is for the person or the altar. But one is not liable for excision on account of piggul from the part of it that permits the sacrifice. How is this? One is not liable for excision on account of piggul when one eats a kazayit of the blood from a sacrifice that is made piggul — as behold, the blood is the part of the sacrifice that permits; since after the sprinkling of the blood, it is permitted to offer the entrails, but not before then. And nonetheless, we administer lashes for it — even if there is no excision with it. But one who eats a kazayit of meat from the sacrifice — or even from the entrails — is liable for excision on account of piggul. As it is the blood that permits the entrails [to be put] on the altar. And after the first thing that permits, we follow this law, to make liable one who eats from any of the rest — and therefore, one who eats even from the entrails is liable. And even though they also permit the meat for a person, it makes no difference; as we follow the blood, which is the first thing that permits, as we have said.
וְכֵן מִנְחָה שֶׁנִּתְפַּגְּלָה, הָאוֹכֵל כַּזַּיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל כַּזַּיִת מִן הַקֹּמֶץ שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹ מִן הַלְּבוֹנָה שֶׁהֵן הַמַּתִּירִין אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם לוֹקֶה עֲלֵיהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל לְעוֹלָם, הַקֹּמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַדָּם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ וְהַיַּיִן וְהַמְּנָחוֹת הַנִּשְׂרָפוֹת כֻּלָּן, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בָּהֶן קֹמֶץ לְהַתִּירָן, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַתִּירִין חוּץ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵין חַיָּבִין מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל עָלָיו. וְלֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצֹרָע גַּם כֵּן אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו. וְאִם תֹּאמַר וַהֲלֹא דַּם הָאָשָׁם מַתִּירוֹ? הַתְּשׁוּבָה שֶׁאֵין תָּלוּי בּוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם מֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ הַיּוֹם וְלֹג אַחַר כַּמָּה יָמִים. And so [too,] one who eats a kazayit from the remainder of a flour-offering that became piggul is liable on account of piggul. But one who eats a kazayit of its handful or from the frankincense — which are the things that permit it — is not liable excision for it. And nonetheless, he is lashed for them, as we have said. And these are the things for which one is never liable for piggul: the handful; frankincense; blood, as we have said; wine; and flour-offerings that are completely burned, as behold they do not have a handful that permits them. And one is not liable on account of piggul for anything that does not have something that permits it, besides it. And one is also not liable for it with a log of oil of the metsora. And if you say, “But does not the blood of the guilt-offering permit it” — the answer is that it is not dependent upon it. As behold, a man brings his guilt-offering today and the log after several days.
וְכֵן מֵעִנְיַן הַמִּצְוָה מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ גַּם כֵּן, שֶׁהַמַּקְרִיב הַמְחַשֵּׁב מַחְשֶׁבֶת פִּגּוּל עוֹבֵר בְּלָאו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם ז יח) לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב לוֹ, וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמַדְנוּ (שם כט ב) שֶׁבִּכְלַל זֶה אַזְהָרָה לְמַקְרִיב שֶׁלֹּא יְחַשֵּׁב מַחְשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל, אֲבָל מִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵינוֹ נֶחְשָׁב מֵחֶשְׁבּוֹן שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שִׁשִּׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה לָאוִין לְפִי שֶׁהוּא כְּעֵין סְנִיפִין לְלָאו אַחֵר שֶׁהוּא נֶחְשָׁב בַּלָּאוִין, וְהוּא מָה שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּסֵדֶר אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים (ויקרא כב כא) כָּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ. וְדָרְשׁוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (בכורות לג ב) מִשָּׁם לָאו לְמֵטִיל מוּם בַּקֳּדָשִׁים. וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּכְתֹּב בְּעֶזְרַת הַשֵּׁם (מצוה רפז). וְגַם הָעִנְיָן גַּם כֵּן שֶׁל מְחַשֵּׁב פְּסוּל כְּעֵין הַמַּטִּיל מוּם הוּא נֶחְשָׁב, וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא חֲשַׁבְנֻהוּ מִן הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן, וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַל זֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא מַחְשָׁבָה בִּלְבַד. וְיֶתֶר דִּינֵי הַמַּחְשָׁבוֹת אֵי זוֹ מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, כְּגוֹן מַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם וּמַחְשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם וּמַחְשֶׁבֶת זְמַן, וּבְאֵיזֶה קָרְבָּן וּבְאֵיזוֹ עֲבוֹדָה, כְּגוֹן שְׁחִיטָה, זְרִיקָה, קַבָּלָה, הוֹלָכָה, וְכָל פְּרָטֵי דִּינֵי הַפִּגּוּל וְגַם נוֹתָר הַדּוֹמֶה לוֹ, מְבֹאָרִים בִּמְקוֹמוֹת רַבִּים מִסֵּדֶר קָדָשִׁים. And so [too,] from the matter of the commandment is that which they also said that one who sacrifices who has a disqualifying thought transgresses a negative commandment; as it is stated (Leviticus 7:18), “it shall not be counted (yichashev) for him (which can also be read as, ‘he shall not think about it’).” And we learned from the tradition (Zevachim 29b) that included in this warning (negative commandment) is about one who sacrifices, that he not have a disqualifying thought. But nonetheless, it is not considered to be from the tally of the three hundred and sixty-five negative commandments, since it is similar to one of the extensions of another negative commandment, which is calculated in the tally — and that is that which is written in the Order of Emor el HaKohanim, “There shall be no blemish in it” (Leviticus 22:21) — and they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Berakhot 33b), on account of the negative commandment of one who places a blemish in [sacrifices]; as we shall write with God’s help (Sefer HaChinukh 287). And also the content of one who has a disqualifying thought is considered similar to one who places a blemish. And hence they did not consider it in the tally. And in any event, he is not lashed for it, since there is no act [involved] with it, but rather only thought. And the rest of the laws of thoughts: which thought disqualifies, for example the thought of changing a name; the thought of a place and the thought of a time; and in which sacrifice; and which process, for example slaughter, sprinkling, reception, taking; and all of the details of the laws of piggul — and also of notar, which is similar to it — are elucidated in many places in the Order of Kedoshim.
וְנוֹהֵג אִסּוּר אֲכִילַת הַפִּגּוּל בִּזְמַן הַבַּיִת בִּזְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, אֲפִלּוּ יִשְׂרְאֵלִים, שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ כְּלָל אֲסָרַתּוּ הַתּוֹרָה לַכֹּל, בֵּין כֹּהֵן בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהָעוֹבֵר עָלֶיהָ וְאָכַל כַּזַּיִת מִמֶּנּוּ בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וּכְבָר פֵּרַשְׁנוּ פַּעֲמַיִם (מצוה קח, קכא) שֶׁקָּרְבַּן שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד לְפִי עֲנִיּוּת וָעֹשֶׁר נִקְרָא קָבוּעַ. And the prohibition of eating piggul is practiced at the time of the [Temple] by males and females — even Israelites, as the Torah prohibited it in general, whether to priests or whether to Israelites. And one who transgresses it and eats a kazayit from it volitionally is liable for excision; inadvertently, he brings a fixed sin-offering. And I have already explained twice (Sefer HaChinukh 108, 121) that a sacrifice that does not vary up and down according to poverty and wealth is called fixed.