Intent in the Outer Court and the Sin of Misusing Sacred Fats

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: what have we now learned for the bull of the anointed priest from the ox of the peace sacrifice? Rather, it likens the bull of the anointed priest to the ox of the peace sacrifice: just as the ox of the peace sacrifice -- its thoughts and its actions must be in the outer house [the Temple court] -- so too the bull of the anointed priest -- its thoughts and its actions must be in the outer house. There is a stringency in fat over blood, and in blood over fat. For the fat -- one is liable for misuse of sacred property [me'ilah] regarding it, and is liable for it on account of piggul [improper intent], remnant, and impurity, which is not so for blood. There is a stringency in blood over fat -- for blood applies to beast, wild animal, and bird, whether pure or impure, while fat applies only to a pure domestic animal. From where are these things derived? Rabbi Yannai said: because the verse says "as it is taken up from the ox of the peace sacrifice" -- and what have we learned from the ox of the peace sacrifice for the bull of the anointed priest now? This comes to teach and is found to be taught: it likens the ox of the peace sacrifice to the bull of the anointed priest -- just as the bull of the anointed priest is subject to misuse, so too the ox of the peace sacrifice is subject to misuse. Rabbi Chananyah said to him: how ugly is this that Rabbi taught -- "all fat is the LORD's" (Leviticus 3:16) to include the sacrificial portions of lesser holy things for misuse! Abaye said: it was necessary, for had the Merciful One written only "all fat," I would say fat yes, the lobe and the two kidneys no; therefore the Merciful One wrote "as it is taken up." And had the Merciful One written only "as it is taken up," I would say the fat-tail, which is not in an ox, no; therefore the Merciful One wrote "all fat." Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid: if the fat-tail is called fat, let one be forbidden in the fat-tail. He said to him: regarding it Scripture says "all fat of ox and sheep and goat" (Leviticus 7:23) -- a thing equal in ox and sheep and goat. "And the priest shall burn them upon the altar of burnt-offering" -- and not upon the inner altar. Is this not a logical inference? The outer altar merited the application of blood, and the inner altar merited the application of blood. Just as the outer altar -- the place where its horns receive blood, there the fats are burned -- so too the inner altar, the place of blood, there the fats are burned. How then do I uphold "you shall offer no strange incense upon it, nor burnt-offering nor meal-offering" (Exodus 30:9)? Holy things that did not merit the application of blood; but holy things that merited the application of blood, since they merited blood, let them merit the burning of fats. The text says "and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of burnt-offering" -- and not upon the inner altar. "The hide of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs" (Leviticus 4:11). "And he shall carry forth" -- this teaches that he carries it forth whole when it is intact. One might think he carries it out whole and burns it whole; the text says "its head and its legs" -- just as "its head and its legs" stated further on is done by means of cutting up, so too here by means of cutting up. Rava said: a thing learned by a gezeira shava [verbal analogy] returns and teaches by a gezeira shava. As it was taught: "and its entrails and its dung -- and he shall carry forth" teaches that he carries it forth whole; one might think he burns it whole; it says here "its head and its legs" and it says further on (Leviticus 1:8-9) "its head and its legs" -- just as further on by cutting up, so too here by cutting up. If so, just as further on with flaying, so too here with flaying? The text says "and its entrails and its dung." What is the proof? Rav Pappa said: just as its dung is within its entrails, so its flesh is within its hide. It was taught, Rabbi says: it says here hide and flesh and dung, and it says further on "hide and flesh and dung" -- just as here by cutting up without flaying, so too further on cutting up without flaying.