Zevachim 47
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Zevachim 47
מִנַּיִן לַמִּתְעַסֵּק בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָה לְשֵׁם בֶּן בָּקָר.
From where is it derived with regard to one who acts unawares in the case of consecrated items, i.e., if one slaughtered an offering without intending to perform the act of slaughter at all, but rather like one occupied with other matters, that the offering is disqualified? Rav Huna said to Shmuel: It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), teaching that the mitzva is not performed properly unless the slaughter is for the sake of a young bull, i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ בְּיָדֵינוּ הִיא; לְעַכֵּב מִנַּיִן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לִרְצֹנְכֶם תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ״ – לְדַעְתְּכֶם זְבֻיחוּ.
Shmuel said to Rav Huna: We have this as an established halakha already, that it is a mitzva to slaughter the offering for the sake of a bull, but from where is it derived that this requirement is indispensable? Rav Huna said to him that the verse states: “With your will you shall slaughter it” (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., with your full awareness you shall slaughter it, in the form of a purposeful action.
שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה הוֹלֶכֶת אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מְפַגְּלִין. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַמַּקְרִיב״.
§ The mishna teaches: Because the intent follows only the one performing the sacrificial rite. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: I heard that even the owner of an offering can render it piggul through improper intention. Rava says: What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei? As the verse states: “Then he who sacrifices shall sacrifice his offering to the Lord” (Numbers 15:4). The term “he who sacrifices” is a reference to the owner; since the owner is considered one who sacrifices, he too can render his offering piggul with an improper intention.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: זֶה מְחַשֵּׁב וְזֶה עוֹבֵד – הָוְיָא מַחְשָׁבָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
Abaye says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar all hold that even in a case involving two people, where this one has intention and that one performs the service, it is the intention that is relevant, i.e., it is as though the one performing the service had the intention. The Gemara explains: The statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, is that which we just said, that the owner can render his offering piggul through improper intention despite the fact that it is the priest who performs the service.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְגוֹי – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל.
The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is as we learned in a mishna (Ḥullin 38b): With regard to one who slaughters an animal on behalf of a gentile, his slaughter is valid and a Jew may eat the meat of this animal. But Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, as the intention of the gentile, which is presumably to use the animal for idol worship, invalidates the act of slaughter performed by the Jew.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – דִּתְנַן, כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּשֵׁר לְהַצְנִיעַ, וְאֵין מַצְנִיעִין כָּמוֹהוּ; הוּכְשַׁר לָזֶה וְהִצְנִיעוֹ, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהוֹצִיאוֹ – נִתְחַיֵּיב זֶה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה שֶׁל זֶה.
The statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is as we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: In the case of any item that is not fit to be stored, and therefore people do not typically store items like it, but it was deemed fit for storage by this person and he stored it, and another person came and carried out on Shabbat the item that was stored, that one who carried it out is rendered liable by the thought of this one who stored it.
תַּרְוַיְיהוּ אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – הַשְׁתָּא בַּחוּץ אָמְרִינַן, בִּפְנִים מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The Gemara notes: These two Sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although their rulings are stated in the context of entirely different matters, accept as halakha the ruling of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara explains: Now that concerning matters outside the Temple, i.e., non-sacred slaughter and carrying on Shabbat, with regard to which the Torah makes no reference to intention, we say that the intention of one person is effective for the action of another, is it necessary to state that the same halakha applies to matters inside the Temple, i.e., offerings, with regard to which it is explicitly stated that intention is effective, as indicated by the verse: “With your will you shall slaughter it” (Leviticus 19:5)?
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֵית לְהוּ דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ – דִּלְמָא בִּפְנִים הוּא דְּאָמְרִינַן, בַּחוּץ לָא אָמְרִינַן.
But Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, does not necessarily accept as halakha the rulings of these two Sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. The Gemara explains: Perhaps it is only concerning inside the Temple that we say that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another, whereas concerning outside the Temple, we do not say this.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – הַשְׁתָּא בְּשַׁבָּת אָמְרִינַן, בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The Gemara further differentiates between the opinions of those two Sages themselves. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar accepts as halakha the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer: Now that with regard to Shabbat we say that the intention of one person is effective for the action of another, is it necessary to say that the same applies concerning idol worship, where the actions are somewhat similar to those performed in the Temple?
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – דִּלְמָא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ כְּעֵין בִּפְנִים, אֲבָל שַׁבָּת – מְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.
But Rabbi Eliezer does not necessarily accept as halakha the ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: Perhaps it is only with regard to idol worship that you say that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another, as idol worship is somewhat similar to service performed inside the Temple. Consequently, it is reasonable that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another in the case of idolatry, as it does for offerings. But with regard to Shabbat, the Torah prohibited only planned, constructive labor, i.e., one is liable only for an action that includes the creative intent of the doer, and here the one who took the item out did not intend to perform a labor.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי
מַתְנִי׳ אֵיזֶהוּ מְקוֹמָן שֶׁל זְבָחִים? קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים – שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן.
MISHNA: What is the location of the slaughtering and consumption of offerings? The principle is that with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard.
פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים – שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן; וְדָמָן טָעוּן הַזָּיָה עַל בֵּין הַבַּדִּים, וְעַל הַפָּרוֹכֶת, וְעַל מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב – מַתָּנָה אַחַת מֵהֶן מְעַכֶּבֶת. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם הָיָה שׁוֹפֵךְ עַל יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, וְאִם לֹא נָתַן לֹא עִכֵּב.
Specifically, with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter is in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the staves of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, and upon the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and on the golden altar. Concerning all those sprinklings, failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering. As to the remainder of the blood, which is left after those sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar. But if he did not place the remainder of the blood on the western base, it does not disqualify the offering.
פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים – שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן; וְדָמָן טָעוּן הַזָּיָה עַל הַפָּרוֹכֶת וְעַל מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב –
With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard, and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling upon the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and upon the golden altar,
מַתָּנָה אַחַת מֵהֶן מְעַכֶּבֶת. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם הָיָה שׁוֹפֵךְ עַל יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, וְאִם לֹא נָתַן לֹא עִיכֵּב. אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ נִשְׂרָפִין אַבֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן.
and failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering. As for the remainder of the blood that is left after those sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar, but if he did not pour the remainder it does not disqualify the offering. These, the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, and those, the bulls and the goats that are burned, are then burned in the place of the ashes, a place outside of Jerusalem where the priests would bring the ashes from the altar.
גְּמָ׳ וְנִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן! כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע דְּקִיבּוּל דָּמוֹ בַּיָּד הוּא – שַׁיְּירֵיהּ.
GEMARA: The mishna opens with a principle that the slaughter of offerings of the most sacred order is in the north of the Temple courtyard. The Gemara inquires: And let the mishna also teach as a principle: And the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north of the Temple courtyard. Since collecting the blood is an indispensable part of the service, why is it not listed in this clause of the mishna? The Gemara explains: Since there is among the offerings of the most sacred order the guilt offering of a leper, for which the collection of its blood is in the hand, the mishna could not state this as a principle. Therefore, the tanna omitted this from the requirements for offerings of the most sacred order.
וְלָא?! וְהָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ לְקַמַּן: אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן!
The Gemara challenges: And is the blood of the guilt offering of a leper not collected in a service vessel? But the mishna teaches this halakha later (54b): With regard to the guilt offering of a nazirite brought for his purification and the guilt offering of a leper brought for his purification, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard and collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north. Apparently, the tanna maintains that the blood of the guilt offering of a leper must be collected in a service vessel.
מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבַר קִיבּוּל דָּמוֹ בַּיָּד הוּא; שַׁיְּירֵיהּ. וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ אֶלָּא בִּכְלִי – הֲדַר תַּנְיֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: Initially, the tanna held that since collection of the blood of the guilt offering of a leper must also be in the priest’s hand, not exclusively in a service vessel, he omitted it. But since it is the case that it is possible for one to collect some of the blood only in a service vessel, the tanna subsequently taught it.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח״ – יָכוֹל בִּכְלִי? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָתַן״ – מָה נְתִינָה בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן, אַף לְקִיחָה בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן.
This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nega’im 9:2): The Torah states with regard to the guilt offering of a leper: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the guilt offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him who is to be purified, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the big toe of his right foot” (Leviticus 14:14). One might have thought that he should take it in a vessel; therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall put.” Just as putting the blood on the ear, thumb, and big toe must be performed with the priest’s own body, so too, taking of the blood is performed with the priest’s own body, not with a service vessel.
יָכוֹל אַף לְמִזְבֵּחַ כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם הוּא״ – מָה חַטָּאת טְעוּנָה כְּלִי, אַף אָשָׁם טָעוּן כְּלִי. נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – שְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים מְקַבְּלִין אֶת דָּמוֹ, אֶחָד בַּיָּד וְאֶחָד בִּכְלִי. זֶה שֶׁקִּיבְּלוֹ בִּכְלִי – בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ, וְזֶה שֶׁקִּיבְּלוֹ בַּיָּד – בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל מְצוֹרָע.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that even with regard to the blood of the leper’s guilt offering that he presents on the altar, like the blood of other guilt offerings, it is so, that he collects the blood in his hand rather than with a vessel. To counter this, the verse states: “For as the sin offering is, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 14:13). This teaches that just as a sin offering requires a vessel for collection of its blood, so too, the blood of a guilt offering requires a vessel for collection of its blood. You consequently say: In the case of a leper’s guilt offering, two priests collect its blood; one collects the blood by hand, and the other one collects the blood in a vessel. This one, who collected the blood in a vessel, comes to the altar and sprinkles some of the blood on it. And that one, who collected the blood by hand, comes to the leper and places some of the blood on his right ear, right thumb, and right big toe.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
New York, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Raanana, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
Zevachim 47
מִנַּיִן לַמִּתְעַסֵּק בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָה לְשֵׁם בֶּן בָּקָר.
From where is it derived with regard to one who acts unawares in the case of consecrated items, i.e., if one slaughtered an offering without intending to perform the act of slaughter at all, but rather like one occupied with other matters, that the offering is disqualified? Rav Huna said to Shmuel: It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), teaching that the mitzva is not performed properly unless the slaughter is for the sake of a young bull, i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ בְּיָדֵינוּ הִיא; לְעַכֵּב מִנַּיִן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לִרְצֹנְכֶם תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ״ – לְדַעְתְּכֶם זְבֻיחוּ.
Shmuel said to Rav Huna: We have this as an established halakha already, that it is a mitzva to slaughter the offering for the sake of a bull, but from where is it derived that this requirement is indispensable? Rav Huna said to him that the verse states: “With your will you shall slaughter it” (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., with your full awareness you shall slaughter it, in the form of a purposeful action.
שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה הוֹלֶכֶת אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מְפַגְּלִין. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַמַּקְרִיב״.
§ The mishna teaches: Because the intent follows only the one performing the sacrificial rite. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: I heard that even the owner of an offering can render it piggul through improper intention. Rava says: What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei? As the verse states: “Then he who sacrifices shall sacrifice his offering to the Lord” (Numbers 15:4). The term “he who sacrifices” is a reference to the owner; since the owner is considered one who sacrifices, he too can render his offering piggul with an improper intention.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: זֶה מְחַשֵּׁב וְזֶה עוֹבֵד – הָוְיָא מַחְשָׁבָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
Abaye says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar all hold that even in a case involving two people, where this one has intention and that one performs the service, it is the intention that is relevant, i.e., it is as though the one performing the service had the intention. The Gemara explains: The statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, is that which we just said, that the owner can render his offering piggul through improper intention despite the fact that it is the priest who performs the service.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְגוֹי – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל.
The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is as we learned in a mishna (Ḥullin 38b): With regard to one who slaughters an animal on behalf of a gentile, his slaughter is valid and a Jew may eat the meat of this animal. But Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, as the intention of the gentile, which is presumably to use the animal for idol worship, invalidates the act of slaughter performed by the Jew.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – דִּתְנַן, כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּשֵׁר לְהַצְנִיעַ, וְאֵין מַצְנִיעִין כָּמוֹהוּ; הוּכְשַׁר לָזֶה וְהִצְנִיעוֹ, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהוֹצִיאוֹ – נִתְחַיֵּיב זֶה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה שֶׁל זֶה.
The statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is as we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: In the case of any item that is not fit to be stored, and therefore people do not typically store items like it, but it was deemed fit for storage by this person and he stored it, and another person came and carried out on Shabbat the item that was stored, that one who carried it out is rendered liable by the thought of this one who stored it.
תַּרְוַיְיהוּ אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – הַשְׁתָּא בַּחוּץ אָמְרִינַן, בִּפְנִים מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The Gemara notes: These two Sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although their rulings are stated in the context of entirely different matters, accept as halakha the ruling of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara explains: Now that concerning matters outside the Temple, i.e., non-sacred slaughter and carrying on Shabbat, with regard to which the Torah makes no reference to intention, we say that the intention of one person is effective for the action of another, is it necessary to state that the same halakha applies to matters inside the Temple, i.e., offerings, with regard to which it is explicitly stated that intention is effective, as indicated by the verse: “With your will you shall slaughter it” (Leviticus 19:5)?
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֵית לְהוּ דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ – דִּלְמָא בִּפְנִים הוּא דְּאָמְרִינַן, בַּחוּץ לָא אָמְרִינַן.
But Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, does not necessarily accept as halakha the rulings of these two Sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. The Gemara explains: Perhaps it is only concerning inside the Temple that we say that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another, whereas concerning outside the Temple, we do not say this.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – הַשְׁתָּא בְּשַׁבָּת אָמְרִינַן, בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The Gemara further differentiates between the opinions of those two Sages themselves. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar accepts as halakha the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer: Now that with regard to Shabbat we say that the intention of one person is effective for the action of another, is it necessary to say that the same applies concerning idol worship, where the actions are somewhat similar to those performed in the Temple?
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – דִּלְמָא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ כְּעֵין בִּפְנִים, אֲבָל שַׁבָּת – מְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.
But Rabbi Eliezer does not necessarily accept as halakha the ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: Perhaps it is only with regard to idol worship that you say that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another, as idol worship is somewhat similar to service performed inside the Temple. Consequently, it is reasonable that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another in the case of idolatry, as it does for offerings. But with regard to Shabbat, the Torah prohibited only planned, constructive labor, i.e., one is liable only for an action that includes the creative intent of the doer, and here the one who took the item out did not intend to perform a labor.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי
מַתְנִי׳ אֵיזֶהוּ מְקוֹמָן שֶׁל זְבָחִים? קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים – שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן.
MISHNA: What is the location of the slaughtering and consumption of offerings? The principle is that with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard.
פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים – שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן; וְדָמָן טָעוּן הַזָּיָה עַל בֵּין הַבַּדִּים, וְעַל הַפָּרוֹכֶת, וְעַל מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב – מַתָּנָה אַחַת מֵהֶן מְעַכֶּבֶת. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם הָיָה שׁוֹפֵךְ עַל יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, וְאִם לֹא נָתַן לֹא עִכֵּב.
Specifically, with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter is in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the staves of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, and upon the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and on the golden altar. Concerning all those sprinklings, failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering. As to the remainder of the blood, which is left after those sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar. But if he did not place the remainder of the blood on the western base, it does not disqualify the offering.
פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים – שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן; וְדָמָן טָעוּן הַזָּיָה עַל הַפָּרוֹכֶת וְעַל מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב –
With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard, and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling upon the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and upon the golden altar,
מַתָּנָה אַחַת מֵהֶן מְעַכֶּבֶת. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם הָיָה שׁוֹפֵךְ עַל יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, וְאִם לֹא נָתַן לֹא עִיכֵּב. אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ נִשְׂרָפִין אַבֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן.
and failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering. As for the remainder of the blood that is left after those sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar, but if he did not pour the remainder it does not disqualify the offering. These, the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, and those, the bulls and the goats that are burned, are then burned in the place of the ashes, a place outside of Jerusalem where the priests would bring the ashes from the altar.
גְּמָ׳ וְנִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן! כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע דְּקִיבּוּל דָּמוֹ בַּיָּד הוּא – שַׁיְּירֵיהּ.
GEMARA: The mishna opens with a principle that the slaughter of offerings of the most sacred order is in the north of the Temple courtyard. The Gemara inquires: And let the mishna also teach as a principle: And the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north of the Temple courtyard. Since collecting the blood is an indispensable part of the service, why is it not listed in this clause of the mishna? The Gemara explains: Since there is among the offerings of the most sacred order the guilt offering of a leper, for which the collection of its blood is in the hand, the mishna could not state this as a principle. Therefore, the tanna omitted this from the requirements for offerings of the most sacred order.
וְלָא?! וְהָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ לְקַמַּן: אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן!
The Gemara challenges: And is the blood of the guilt offering of a leper not collected in a service vessel? But the mishna teaches this halakha later (54b): With regard to the guilt offering of a nazirite brought for his purification and the guilt offering of a leper brought for his purification, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard and collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north. Apparently, the tanna maintains that the blood of the guilt offering of a leper must be collected in a service vessel.
מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבַר קִיבּוּל דָּמוֹ בַּיָּד הוּא; שַׁיְּירֵיהּ. וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ אֶלָּא בִּכְלִי – הֲדַר תַּנְיֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: Initially, the tanna held that since collection of the blood of the guilt offering of a leper must also be in the priest’s hand, not exclusively in a service vessel, he omitted it. But since it is the case that it is possible for one to collect some of the blood only in a service vessel, the tanna subsequently taught it.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח״ – יָכוֹל בִּכְלִי? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָתַן״ – מָה נְתִינָה בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן, אַף לְקִיחָה בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן.
This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nega’im 9:2): The Torah states with regard to the guilt offering of a leper: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the guilt offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him who is to be purified, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the big toe of his right foot” (Leviticus 14:14). One might have thought that he should take it in a vessel; therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall put.” Just as putting the blood on the ear, thumb, and big toe must be performed with the priest’s own body, so too, taking of the blood is performed with the priest’s own body, not with a service vessel.
יָכוֹל אַף לְמִזְבֵּחַ כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם הוּא״ – מָה חַטָּאת טְעוּנָה כְּלִי, אַף אָשָׁם טָעוּן כְּלִי. נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – שְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים מְקַבְּלִין אֶת דָּמוֹ, אֶחָד בַּיָּד וְאֶחָד בִּכְלִי. זֶה שֶׁקִּיבְּלוֹ בִּכְלִי – בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל מִזְבֵּחַ, וְזֶה שֶׁקִּיבְּלוֹ בַּיָּד – בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל מְצוֹרָע.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that even with regard to the blood of the leper’s guilt offering that he presents on the altar, like the blood of other guilt offerings, it is so, that he collects the blood in his hand rather than with a vessel. To counter this, the verse states: “For as the sin offering is, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 14:13). This teaches that just as a sin offering requires a vessel for collection of its blood, so too, the blood of a guilt offering requires a vessel for collection of its blood. You consequently say: In the case of a leper’s guilt offering, two priests collect its blood; one collects the blood by hand, and the other one collects the blood in a vessel. This one, who collected the blood in a vessel, comes to the altar and sprinkles some of the blood on it. And that one, who collected the blood by hand, comes to the leper and places some of the blood on his right ear, right thumb, and right big toe.
