Study Nedarim folio 36A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Rav Shimi bar Abba raised an objection from the Tosefta (2:7): If the one who vowed to prohibit another from benefiting from him was a priest, he may sprinkle the blood of his sin-offering and the blood of his guilt-offering on the other’s behalf. Apparently, the priest may perform all sacrificial r
The Talmud answers. The reference is to blood of the sin-offering of a metzora and blood of the guilt-offering of a metzora. These are offerings brought by a metzora who is lacking atonement, in order to complete his purification process, as it is written: “This is the law of the metzora” (Leviticu
The Talmud cites another proof to resolve the dilemma with regard to the nature of the agency of a priest. We learned in a Mishnah: In the case of priests who rendered an offering piggul in the Temple, i.e., they sacrificed an offering intending to consume it after its appointed time, if they did s
The Talmud asks: Granted, if you say that the priests are agents of Heaven, this is why when their actions cause piggul it is piggul; their actions are independent of the one bringing the offering. However, if you say that the priests are our agents, why when their actions cause piggul is it piggul
The rabbis say in response: It is different with regard to piggul, as in its regard the verse states and emphasizes: “He who offered it, it will not be imputed to him” (Leviticus 7:18). This implies that it is piggul in any case, e.g., even if one’s actions cause the offering to be piggul without t