Halakhah su Levitico 7:18

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 (gezara shava).

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 (gezara shava) be light in your eyes; as behold piggul is one of the [important] bodies of Torah, and Scripture only taught it through a gezara 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."

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 Ha Chinukh 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.

To not eat notar: To not eat notar - and that is what remains from the meat of consecrated animals, from a sacrifice that was brought according to its commanded [specifications] after the time that it is fit to eat from it, as it is stated about the inauguratory sacrifices (Exodus 29:33), "it shall not be eaten, they are holy." And the explanation came about this (Meilah 17b), "[It refers to] anything that is consecrated [that is] disqualified, to give a negative commandment on its eating." And this is hinted to by the verse, in its stating, "they are holy": This third person, which is "they," includes all that which is disqualified of the consecrated animals. But we should not learn from this that notar and pigul (sacrifices disqualified by the wrong thought) are considered one negative commandment, as they are two topics - as I have written above on the prohibition of pigul in the Order of Tsav (Sefer HaChinukh 144). And we found about them that two [different] verses came concerning the punishments, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18), "And if it is surely eaten, etc."; and it is written, after it, "and the soul that eats it will carry its iniquity" - and this carrying of iniquity is excision, as we learn from a comparison with notar. As here, it is written concerning notar (Leviticus 19:6-8), "and that which remains to the third day[...] is piggul, it is not acceptable. And one who eats them will carry his iniquity, since he profaned the holy of God, and excised, etc." And hence, even if the warning for both of them is from one verse, it is not made impossible because of this to consider them two [separate] negative commandments. And so did they say in Meilah 17b, "Pigul and notar do not combine because they are two topics, etc." - as it is explained there that there are things that do not combine and there are things that combine.