The Mishna (Zevachim 2:3) clearly defines piggul (פגול) as resulting from one of the four sacrificial procedures (slaughter, collection of the blood, walking to the altar and sprinkling) being performed with the intention of eating the sacrifice after its appointed time only. Something that is slaughtered (or has its blood collected, carried or sprinkled) on condition that it be eaten outside of its appointed place is also forbidden, but it is not called piggul and it does not result in karet.

This same attitude is expressly clearly in the Rambam (Hilkhot Pesulei haMuqdashin 13:1) - any sacrifice that is performed with the intention of its being eaten outside the appointed place is forbidden, but only that which is performed with the intention if its being eaten outside of its appointed time is called piggul.

I am not aware of anybody holding contrary to this, and yet consider what the Bartenura says on Kareitot 1:1! There, the mishna includes the consumption of piggul as one of the thirty-six things that results in karet, and the Bartenura defines piggul as follows:

קדשים שחשב לאכלן חוץ לזמנן או חוץ למקומן

Sacrifices, [during the performance of which] one intended to eat of them outside the appointed time, or outside the appointed place.

Is this a typo in the Bartenura?? I've checked two different versions already, and this is what he says in both of them. Not only that, but I've not found anybody else commenting upon the phenomenon. Assuming it is not a mistake, how can the Bartenura define piggul contrary to the Rambam, the gemara and the Mishna itself?

  • I remember the Yerushalmi in Pesachim through Rabbi Yochanan go in more detail on Piggul. I do not recall where at the moment. I learned this a few years ago. Dec 14, 2017 at 13:12

3 Answers 3


The עיקר תוי"ט already asks your question ibid

ח: וְדִבְרֵי תֵּימַהּ הֵן, דִּבְהֶדְיָא שָׁנִינוּ בְּמִשְׁנָה ג' פֶּרֶק ב' דִּזְבָחִים חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת‏

So it seems that the Bartenura was either badly copied or else simply used the common phrase חוץ לזמנן או חוץ למקומן "as a matter of habit".

(For similar, see the עיקר תוי"ט on ברכות Ch. 4 note (יא) where he also says אגב רהיטא לא דק דהול"ל והתפללו אליך דרך העיר. So it happens that the Bartenura can't be taken literally.)

  • 1
    Thankyou! That's a little embarrassing, since I actually thought that I'd checked the Tosafot Yom Tov, and I evidentally didn't look hard enough! Now that I do, I see that the Ahavat Eytan and Tiferet Yisrael comment on this too. The latter, incidentally, thinks that חוץ למקומו is a type of piggul. That still doesn't answer why it should be included here if it doesn't cause karet, but I'll see what the Ahavat Eytan has to say. In the meantime, I think your suggestion about a copyist's error makes good sense!
    – Shimon bM
    Jul 28, 2015 at 12:10
  • 2
    For the record: The Tosafot Yom Tov and עיקר תוי"ט share a name, but are not always in sync. The עיקר תוי"ט will quote from other sources as well. (Same for the שפתי חכמים and the עיקר ש"ח - they sometimes even argue - though I've forgotten where that is.) Jul 28, 2015 at 13:59

Whereas I agree that there is no Kareit for Chutz Limkomo (and thus the question stands), I am not convinced that the technical term 'Pigul' does not also refer to Chutz Limkomo. See Meila 5b:

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שִׁירַיִים אֶלָּא חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, הוֹאִיל וּמְרַצִּין לְפִיגּוּלָן. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him in response: You do not have a matter of an invalid sprinkling that renders the remaining blood leftovers except for a case where he sprinkled the blood with the intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time or outside its designated area. In these instances it is considered a significant sprinkling, since this sprinkling with improper intent effects acceptance, i.e., it is considered a valid sprinkling with regard to rendering the meat of the offering piggul.

Artscroll states in footnote 5: [B]ut if a zerikah was invalidated through beyond its time or outside its place intent ... It renders the offering Piggul."


Piggul is obviously TIME but at a different time the PLACE changes also!! So the PLACE acquires a new status due to its relationship to TIME!! It is not through itself as Place but through its relationship to Time that this occurs. In a mundane way, one never steps into the same river twice!!

  • Please Aleksander can you explain yourself a bit better. As it is written it seems incomprehensible to me
    – Imanonov
    Jul 28, 2015 at 22:54
  • To me this clarifies... קדשים שחשב לאכלן חוץ לזמנן או חוץ למקומן!!To me it is the equating of Time and Location or Place. Let us not forget that Makom is used here with all of its overtones and Gematria that connotes it to HaShem. Hopefully, you can extend it from there. This Place is NEVER Karet!! But can become forbidden due to its relationship to Time. The phrase given was from the Bartenura, not me. I am only trying to explicate why he wrote this and why he is absolutely correct!!
    – Aleksander
    Jul 29, 2015 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .