Today's Daf Yomi
May 25, 2018 | 讬状讗 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Zevachim 42
Study Guide Zevachim 42. Rabbi Meir says that if one has a pigul thought during the sprinkling of one of the corners of the inner altar (in the sin offerings brought on the inner altar), the meat is pigul and if one eats, it, one will get karet. The rabbis disagree. There is a debate regarding the reason for Rabbi Meir’s opinion. Sources are brought to raise contradictions to both sides.聽One is resolved and others aren’t.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
讗讘诇 讚诪讬诐 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 注砖专 砖诇 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜讗讞讚 注砖专 砖诇 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 驻讬讙诇 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讘讬谉 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讘讬谉 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘讻诇 讛诪转讬专
But with regard to the blood placed inside, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, on the Curtain, and on the inner altar, e.g., the forty-three presentations of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, and the eleven presentations of the blood of the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, and the eleven presentations of the blood of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, if in those cases the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul, whether during the first set of presentations, whether during the second set, or whether during the third set, i.e., in any of the requisite sets of presentations, Rabbi Meir says: The offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption. And the Rabbis say: There is no liability for karet unless he had an intention that can render the offering piggul during the performance of the entire permitting factor.
拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 驻讬讙诇 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讬谉 讘砖谞讬讛 讘讬谉 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讜驻诇讬讙
In any event, this baraita teaches: If the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul, whether during the first set of presentations, whether during the second set, or whether during the third set, and yet Rabbi Meir disputes the ruling of the Rabbis and says that the offering is piggul. If the priest鈥檚 intent renders the offering piggul whether it was during the first, second, or third set of presentations, evidently Rabbi Meir鈥檚 ruling must be based on the consideration that one can render an offering piggul during half a permitting factor. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish鈥檚 claim that Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason is that anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent, the offering shoud be piggul only if the first set of presentations was performed with an improper intention while the rest were performed silently.
讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖驻讬讙诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讚讞讚 诪转讬专 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉
Rav Yitz岣k bar Avin says: What are we dealing with here? We are not dealing with a case of a priest who had improper intention in the presentations themselves, where the issue of half a permitting factor is relevent. Rather, we are dealing with a case where he had an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during the act of slaughter. In other words, after presenting the blood of the bull inside the Sanctuary, the rest of the blood spilled, and he had to slaughter another bull so that he could continue with the presentations, this time on the Curtain. The reason for Rabbi Meir鈥檚 ruling is that the act of slaughter is one permitting factor, and therefore the priest鈥檚 improper intent involved an entire service, not half a permitting factor. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason for the ruling of the Rabbis?
讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛拽讟讜专转 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖讛拽专讬讘 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 讻讜诇谉
Rava says: Who are these Rabbis? This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a mishna (109b): With regard to the handful of a meal offering, and the frankincense, and the incense, and the meal offering of priests, and the meal offering of the anointed priest, and the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, in a case where one sacrificed even an olive-bulk from any one of these, which should be sacrificed on the altar, outside the Temple, he is liable, as the burning of an olive-bulk is considered a proper burning. And Rabbi Eliezer deems him exempt unless he sacrifices the whole of any one of these items outside the Temple. This indicates that according to Rabbi Eliezer even when one performs a proper action he is not liable unless he completes the service. The same should apply to the slaughter of different bulls for different sets of presentations; one should be liable only if he rendered each of them piggul.
讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讚诪讬诐 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽 诪砖诐 讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇
The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can you explain Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion with regard to the presentation of the blood in this manner? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: And Rabbi Eliezer concedes with regard to blood that even one who sacrifices part of the blood outside the Temple is liable? As we learned in a mishna (Yoma 60a) that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: If the blood of the bull or goat of Yom Kippur spilled, even if this occurred in the middle of one of the sets of sprinklings, and the High Priest slaughtered another animal, nevertheless, from the place that he interrupted that particular rite, when the blood spilled, there he resumes performance of that rite. In Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion, each individual sprinkling in each of these rites is an act in and of itself, and therefore the offering can be rendered piggul through any one of them. This is certainly not the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir in the baraita.
讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖驻讬讙诇 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖转拽 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讞讝专 讜驻讬讙诇 讘砖诇讬砖讬转
Rather, Rava says: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish would explain that the baraita does not mean that the priest had an improper intention either during the first set of sprinklings or the second or the third. Instead, this is referring to a case where the High Priest had an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during the first set of sprinklings, in the Holy of Holies, and was silent during the second set of sprinklings, on the Curtain, and again had an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during the third set of sprinklings, on the inner altar. There is a certain novelty in this case according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent.
诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注诇 讚注转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 诪讬讛讚专 驻讬讙讜诇讬 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 砖转拽 拽转谞讬
Rava elaborates: Lest you say that if it enters your mind that when the priest performs the second set of sprinklings he does so with his initial intent, i.e., that which he had at the time of the first set of sprinklings, why do I need him once again to have an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during the third set of sprinklings? Doesn鈥檛 his explicit intent during the third set of sprinklings indicate that he did not have this intent during the second set of sprinklings? Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not so, but rather his silence during the second set is considered a continuation of his initial intent. Rav Ashi objects to this: Is it taught that he was silent during the second set of sprinklings? According to Rava鈥檚 interpretation this is the key detail of the case, and yet it is not mentioned in the baraita.
讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖驻讬讙诇 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讘砖谞讬讛 讜讘砖诇讬砖讬转 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 注诇 讚注转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪讛讚专 驻讬讙讜诇讬 讘讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
Rather, Rav Ashi said: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where the High Priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul during the first set of sprinklings, in the Holy of Holies, and during the second set, on the Curtain, and during the third, on the corners of the inner altar. But during the fourth set, the sprinklings on the top of the inner altar, he was silent. Lest you say that if it enters your mind to say that anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent, why do I need him once again to have an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during each and every set of sprinklings? Therefore, the baraita teaches us that even so he is considered to have performed all the sprinklings with his initial intent.
讜讛讗 讘讬谉 讘讬谉 拽转谞讬 拽砖讬讗
The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can Rav Ashi explain the baraita as referring to a case where the High Priest had an improper intention during the first, second, and third sets of sprinklings? But doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: If the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul, whether during the first set of presentations, whether during the second set, or whether during the third set? This indicates that he did not have improper intent during all the sprinklings but only in part of them. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult, as the wording of the baraita does not suit this interpretation.
讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 诪讻讚讬 讻专转 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 诪转讬专讬讜 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻讛专爪讗转 讻砖专 讻讱 讛专爪讗转 驻住讜诇 诪讛 讛专爪讗转 讻砖专 注讚 砖讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 诪转讬专讬讜 讗祝 讛专爪讗转 驻住讜诇 注讚 砖讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 诪转讬专讬讜
搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the baraita that addresses the blood presented inside the Sanctuary. The Master said that if the High Priest had an improper intention in one of the sets of presentations, e.g., inside the Holy of Holies, Rabbi Meir says: The offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, despite the fact that he performed the rest of the rite silently. The Gemara asks: Now consider, one is not liable to receive karet unless all the permitting factors of the offering have been sacrificed, i.e., if the whole service is completed, including the presentation of the blood. As the Master said: As is the acceptance of a valid offering, so is the lack of acceptance of a disqualified offering: Just as there is no acceptance of a valid offerning unless all its permitting factors have been sacrificed, so too, there is no lack of acceptance of a disqualified offering, i.e., it is not rendered piggul, unless all its permitting factors have been sacrificed. That is to say, in the absence of one of its permitting factors it does not become piggul.
讜讛讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞砖讬讘 讘讬讛 讘驻谞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讗讚讬 讚诪讬 讻讬 讛讚专 诪讚讬 讘讛讬讻诇 诪讬讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讗讚讬
But here, in the case of the bull or goat of Yom Kippur, since he intended to burn the offering beyond its designated time while he was sprinkling the blood inside the Holy of Holies, the sprinkling is not valid, and therefore the High Priest is considered like one who did not sprinkle the blood, as every one of the sprinklings of the blood of an inner sin offering is indispensable. If so, when he sprinkles the blood again later in the Sanctuary, on the Curtain and the inner altar, it is as though he is merely sprinkling water, and not the blood of the offering. Consequently, the permitting factors of the offering have not been sacrificed, and therefore the offering should not be rendered piggul.
讗诪专 专讘讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讗专讘注讛 驻专讬诐 讜讘讗专讘注讛 砖注讬专讬诐
Rabba says: You find it in a case of four bulls and of four goats. After sprinkling blood inside the Holy of Holies with the intent to burn the offering beyond its designated time, the blood spilled. Since the priest did not use that blood again, the service inside the Holy of Holies was completed, and that permitting factor was performed properly. He then had to slaughter another bull and goat for the other sprinklings inside the Sanctuary, which he again performed with improper intent and again the blood spilled. The same sequence repeated itself in the sprinklings on the inner altar and on the top of the altar. In this manner each permitting factor was performed properly.
专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘驻专 讗讞讚 讜砖注讬专 讗讞讚 诇驻讬讙讜诇讜 诪专爪讛
Rava said: You may even say that this is a case where there is only one bull and one goat, as the sprinkling effects acceptance with regard to the offering鈥檚 status of piggul. In other words, even though the High Priest sprinkled the blood inside the Holy of Holies with an improper intention, and thereby disqualified the offering, nevertheless, since he completed the service, he is considered as having sacrificed all the permitting factors with regard to piggul.
讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诇砖 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖讘注 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇拽专谞讜转 讜讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇拽专谞讜转
搂 The baraita mentioned that there are forty-three presentations of the blood of the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught otherwise in a different baraita, that there are forty-seven presentations of that blood? The Gemara answers: This statement, that there are forty-three presentations, is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the High Priest mixes the blood of the bull and the goat before placing it on the corners of the inner altar, rather than placing the blood of each one separately. And that statement, that there are forty-seven presentations, is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the High Priest does not mix the two types of blood before placing them on the corners, but sprinkles four times from the blood of the bull and another four times from the blood of the goat, and only afterward mixes the blood of the two animals for placement on the top of the altar.
讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉
The Gemara raises another difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in yet another baraita that there are forty-eight presentations? The Gemara answers: This statement, that there are forty-eight presentations, is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the pouring of the remainder of the blood on the base of the external altar is indispensable, and therefore this act is added to the total. That statement, that there are only forty-seven presentations, is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the pouring of the remainder of the blood is not indispensable.
诪讬转讬讘讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽诪讬爪讛 讘诪转谉 讻诇讬 讜讘讛讬诇讜讱
The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish鈥檚 understanding of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion, that one cannot render an offering piggul with an improper intention during the performance of half a permitting factor, from a baraita discussing piggul of a meal offering, which states: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that if the priest had an improper intention during the performance of one of its services, the offering is piggul, despite the fact that he performed the rest of the services silently? When he had the improper intention in the removal of the handful, or in the placement of the handful in a service vessel, or in the walking with the handful to the altar.
讗讘诇 讘讗 诇讜 诇讛拽讟专讛 谞转谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讘砖转讬拽讛 讗讜 砖谞转谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 讘砖转讬拽讛 讜讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讘诪讞砖讘讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘讻诇 讛诪转讬专
But if he came to perform the burning of the handful and the frankincense, and he presented the handful on the altar with an improper intention and the frankincense he presented silently, or he presented the handful silently and the frankincense he presented with an improper intention, Rabbi Meir says: The offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for consuming it. And the Rabbis say: There is no liablility to receive karet unless the priest had an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during the performance of the entire permitting factor.
拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 讘砖转讬拽讛 讜讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讜驻诇讬讙 讗讬诪讗 讻讘专 谞转谉 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讘诪讞砖讘讛
In any event, this baraita teaches: Or he presented the handful silently and the frankincense he presented with an improper intention, and yet Rabbi Meir disagrees with the ruling of the Rabbis and says that the offering is piggul. This indicates that the decisive factor according to Rabbi Meir is not that the priest continues his initial intent, but that one can render an offering piggul during the performance of half a permitting factor. The Gemara answers: Say and explain the baraita as follows: Or he presented the handful silently after he had already presented the frankincense with an improper intention. In this case the offering is piggul because he performed the second action with his initial intent.
讞讚讗 讚讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讜注讜讚 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽砖讬讗
The Gemara refutes this interpretation: One counterclaim is that if this is what the baraita is saying, this is exactly the same case as the first clause. And furthermore, isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in another baraita: And afterward he presented the frankincense with an improper intention. The Gemara states: Indeed, this is difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who claims that according to Rabbi Meir one cannot render an offering piggul during the performance of half a permitting factor.
诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛拽讟专转 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛
MISHNA: And these are the items for which one is not liable to receive karet due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. One is liable to receive karet only if he partakes of an item that was permitted for consumption or for the altar by another item. As for the items listed here, either nothing else renders them permitted for consumption or for the altar, or they themselves render other items permitted. They are as follows: The handful of flour, which permits consumption of the meal offering; the incense, which is burned in its entirety, without another item rendering it permitted for the altar; the frankincense, which is burned together with the handful of the meal offering;
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Zevachim 42
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讗讘诇 讚诪讬诐 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 注砖专 砖诇 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜讗讞讚 注砖专 砖诇 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 驻讬讙诇 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讘讬谉 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讘讬谉 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘讻诇 讛诪转讬专
But with regard to the blood placed inside, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, on the Curtain, and on the inner altar, e.g., the forty-three presentations of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, and the eleven presentations of the blood of the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, and the eleven presentations of the blood of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, if in those cases the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul, whether during the first set of presentations, whether during the second set, or whether during the third set, i.e., in any of the requisite sets of presentations, Rabbi Meir says: The offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption. And the Rabbis say: There is no liability for karet unless he had an intention that can render the offering piggul during the performance of the entire permitting factor.
拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 驻讬讙诇 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讬谉 讘砖谞讬讛 讘讬谉 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讜驻诇讬讙
In any event, this baraita teaches: If the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul, whether during the first set of presentations, whether during the second set, or whether during the third set, and yet Rabbi Meir disputes the ruling of the Rabbis and says that the offering is piggul. If the priest鈥檚 intent renders the offering piggul whether it was during the first, second, or third set of presentations, evidently Rabbi Meir鈥檚 ruling must be based on the consideration that one can render an offering piggul during half a permitting factor. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish鈥檚 claim that Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason is that anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent, the offering shoud be piggul only if the first set of presentations was performed with an improper intention while the rest were performed silently.
讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖驻讬讙诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讚讞讚 诪转讬专 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉
Rav Yitz岣k bar Avin says: What are we dealing with here? We are not dealing with a case of a priest who had improper intention in the presentations themselves, where the issue of half a permitting factor is relevent. Rather, we are dealing with a case where he had an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during the act of slaughter. In other words, after presenting the blood of the bull inside the Sanctuary, the rest of the blood spilled, and he had to slaughter another bull so that he could continue with the presentations, this time on the Curtain. The reason for Rabbi Meir鈥檚 ruling is that the act of slaughter is one permitting factor, and therefore the priest鈥檚 improper intent involved an entire service, not half a permitting factor. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason for the ruling of the Rabbis?
讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛拽讟讜专转 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖讛拽专讬讘 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 讻讜诇谉
Rava says: Who are these Rabbis? This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a mishna (109b): With regard to the handful of a meal offering, and the frankincense, and the incense, and the meal offering of priests, and the meal offering of the anointed priest, and the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, in a case where one sacrificed even an olive-bulk from any one of these, which should be sacrificed on the altar, outside the Temple, he is liable, as the burning of an olive-bulk is considered a proper burning. And Rabbi Eliezer deems him exempt unless he sacrifices the whole of any one of these items outside the Temple. This indicates that according to Rabbi Eliezer even when one performs a proper action he is not liable unless he completes the service. The same should apply to the slaughter of different bulls for different sets of presentations; one should be liable only if he rendered each of them piggul.
讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讚诪讬诐 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽 诪砖诐 讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇
The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can you explain Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion with regard to the presentation of the blood in this manner? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: And Rabbi Eliezer concedes with regard to blood that even one who sacrifices part of the blood outside the Temple is liable? As we learned in a mishna (Yoma 60a) that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: If the blood of the bull or goat of Yom Kippur spilled, even if this occurred in the middle of one of the sets of sprinklings, and the High Priest slaughtered another animal, nevertheless, from the place that he interrupted that particular rite, when the blood spilled, there he resumes performance of that rite. In Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion, each individual sprinkling in each of these rites is an act in and of itself, and therefore the offering can be rendered piggul through any one of them. This is certainly not the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir in the baraita.
讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖驻讬讙诇 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖转拽 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讞讝专 讜驻讬讙诇 讘砖诇讬砖讬转
Rather, Rava says: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish would explain that the baraita does not mean that the priest had an improper intention either during the first set of sprinklings or the second or the third. Instead, this is referring to a case where the High Priest had an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during the first set of sprinklings, in the Holy of Holies, and was silent during the second set of sprinklings, on the Curtain, and again had an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during the third set of sprinklings, on the inner altar. There is a certain novelty in this case according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent.
诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注诇 讚注转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 诪讬讛讚专 驻讬讙讜诇讬 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 砖转拽 拽转谞讬
Rava elaborates: Lest you say that if it enters your mind that when the priest performs the second set of sprinklings he does so with his initial intent, i.e., that which he had at the time of the first set of sprinklings, why do I need him once again to have an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during the third set of sprinklings? Doesn鈥檛 his explicit intent during the third set of sprinklings indicate that he did not have this intent during the second set of sprinklings? Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not so, but rather his silence during the second set is considered a continuation of his initial intent. Rav Ashi objects to this: Is it taught that he was silent during the second set of sprinklings? According to Rava鈥檚 interpretation this is the key detail of the case, and yet it is not mentioned in the baraita.
讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖驻讬讙诇 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讘砖谞讬讛 讜讘砖诇讬砖讬转 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 注诇 讚注转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪讛讚专 驻讬讙讜诇讬 讘讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
Rather, Rav Ashi said: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where the High Priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul during the first set of sprinklings, in the Holy of Holies, and during the second set, on the Curtain, and during the third, on the corners of the inner altar. But during the fourth set, the sprinklings on the top of the inner altar, he was silent. Lest you say that if it enters your mind to say that anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent, why do I need him once again to have an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during each and every set of sprinklings? Therefore, the baraita teaches us that even so he is considered to have performed all the sprinklings with his initial intent.
讜讛讗 讘讬谉 讘讬谉 拽转谞讬 拽砖讬讗
The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can Rav Ashi explain the baraita as referring to a case where the High Priest had an improper intention during the first, second, and third sets of sprinklings? But doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: If the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul, whether during the first set of presentations, whether during the second set, or whether during the third set? This indicates that he did not have improper intent during all the sprinklings but only in part of them. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult, as the wording of the baraita does not suit this interpretation.
讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 诪讻讚讬 讻专转 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 诪转讬专讬讜 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻讛专爪讗转 讻砖专 讻讱 讛专爪讗转 驻住讜诇 诪讛 讛专爪讗转 讻砖专 注讚 砖讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 诪转讬专讬讜 讗祝 讛专爪讗转 驻住讜诇 注讚 砖讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 诪转讬专讬讜
搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the baraita that addresses the blood presented inside the Sanctuary. The Master said that if the High Priest had an improper intention in one of the sets of presentations, e.g., inside the Holy of Holies, Rabbi Meir says: The offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, despite the fact that he performed the rest of the rite silently. The Gemara asks: Now consider, one is not liable to receive karet unless all the permitting factors of the offering have been sacrificed, i.e., if the whole service is completed, including the presentation of the blood. As the Master said: As is the acceptance of a valid offering, so is the lack of acceptance of a disqualified offering: Just as there is no acceptance of a valid offerning unless all its permitting factors have been sacrificed, so too, there is no lack of acceptance of a disqualified offering, i.e., it is not rendered piggul, unless all its permitting factors have been sacrificed. That is to say, in the absence of one of its permitting factors it does not become piggul.
讜讛讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞砖讬讘 讘讬讛 讘驻谞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讗讚讬 讚诪讬 讻讬 讛讚专 诪讚讬 讘讛讬讻诇 诪讬讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讗讚讬
But here, in the case of the bull or goat of Yom Kippur, since he intended to burn the offering beyond its designated time while he was sprinkling the blood inside the Holy of Holies, the sprinkling is not valid, and therefore the High Priest is considered like one who did not sprinkle the blood, as every one of the sprinklings of the blood of an inner sin offering is indispensable. If so, when he sprinkles the blood again later in the Sanctuary, on the Curtain and the inner altar, it is as though he is merely sprinkling water, and not the blood of the offering. Consequently, the permitting factors of the offering have not been sacrificed, and therefore the offering should not be rendered piggul.
讗诪专 专讘讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讗专讘注讛 驻专讬诐 讜讘讗专讘注讛 砖注讬专讬诐
Rabba says: You find it in a case of four bulls and of four goats. After sprinkling blood inside the Holy of Holies with the intent to burn the offering beyond its designated time, the blood spilled. Since the priest did not use that blood again, the service inside the Holy of Holies was completed, and that permitting factor was performed properly. He then had to slaughter another bull and goat for the other sprinklings inside the Sanctuary, which he again performed with improper intent and again the blood spilled. The same sequence repeated itself in the sprinklings on the inner altar and on the top of the altar. In this manner each permitting factor was performed properly.
专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘驻专 讗讞讚 讜砖注讬专 讗讞讚 诇驻讬讙讜诇讜 诪专爪讛
Rava said: You may even say that this is a case where there is only one bull and one goat, as the sprinkling effects acceptance with regard to the offering鈥檚 status of piggul. In other words, even though the High Priest sprinkled the blood inside the Holy of Holies with an improper intention, and thereby disqualified the offering, nevertheless, since he completed the service, he is considered as having sacrificed all the permitting factors with regard to piggul.
讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诇砖 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖讘注 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇拽专谞讜转 讜讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇拽专谞讜转
搂 The baraita mentioned that there are forty-three presentations of the blood of the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught otherwise in a different baraita, that there are forty-seven presentations of that blood? The Gemara answers: This statement, that there are forty-three presentations, is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the High Priest mixes the blood of the bull and the goat before placing it on the corners of the inner altar, rather than placing the blood of each one separately. And that statement, that there are forty-seven presentations, is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the High Priest does not mix the two types of blood before placing them on the corners, but sprinkles four times from the blood of the bull and another four times from the blood of the goat, and only afterward mixes the blood of the two animals for placement on the top of the altar.
讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉
The Gemara raises another difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in yet another baraita that there are forty-eight presentations? The Gemara answers: This statement, that there are forty-eight presentations, is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the pouring of the remainder of the blood on the base of the external altar is indispensable, and therefore this act is added to the total. That statement, that there are only forty-seven presentations, is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the pouring of the remainder of the blood is not indispensable.
诪讬转讬讘讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽诪讬爪讛 讘诪转谉 讻诇讬 讜讘讛讬诇讜讱
The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish鈥檚 understanding of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion, that one cannot render an offering piggul with an improper intention during the performance of half a permitting factor, from a baraita discussing piggul of a meal offering, which states: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that if the priest had an improper intention during the performance of one of its services, the offering is piggul, despite the fact that he performed the rest of the services silently? When he had the improper intention in the removal of the handful, or in the placement of the handful in a service vessel, or in the walking with the handful to the altar.
讗讘诇 讘讗 诇讜 诇讛拽讟专讛 谞转谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讘砖转讬拽讛 讗讜 砖谞转谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 讘砖转讬拽讛 讜讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讘诪讞砖讘讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘讻诇 讛诪转讬专
But if he came to perform the burning of the handful and the frankincense, and he presented the handful on the altar with an improper intention and the frankincense he presented silently, or he presented the handful silently and the frankincense he presented with an improper intention, Rabbi Meir says: The offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for consuming it. And the Rabbis say: There is no liablility to receive karet unless the priest had an improper intention that can render the offering piggul during the performance of the entire permitting factor.
拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 讘砖转讬拽讛 讜讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讜驻诇讬讙 讗讬诪讗 讻讘专 谞转谉 讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讘诪讞砖讘讛
In any event, this baraita teaches: Or he presented the handful silently and the frankincense he presented with an improper intention, and yet Rabbi Meir disagrees with the ruling of the Rabbis and says that the offering is piggul. This indicates that the decisive factor according to Rabbi Meir is not that the priest continues his initial intent, but that one can render an offering piggul during the performance of half a permitting factor. The Gemara answers: Say and explain the baraita as follows: Or he presented the handful silently after he had already presented the frankincense with an improper intention. In this case the offering is piggul because he performed the second action with his initial intent.
讞讚讗 讚讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讜注讜讚 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽砖讬讗
The Gemara refutes this interpretation: One counterclaim is that if this is what the baraita is saying, this is exactly the same case as the first clause. And furthermore, isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in another baraita: And afterward he presented the frankincense with an improper intention. The Gemara states: Indeed, this is difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who claims that according to Rabbi Meir one cannot render an offering piggul during the performance of half a permitting factor.
诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛拽讟专转 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛
MISHNA: And these are the items for which one is not liable to receive karet due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. One is liable to receive karet only if he partakes of an item that was permitted for consumption or for the altar by another item. As for the items listed here, either nothing else renders them permitted for consumption or for the altar, or they themselves render other items permitted. They are as follows: The handful of flour, which permits consumption of the meal offering; the incense, which is burned in its entirety, without another item rendering it permitted for the altar; the frankincense, which is burned together with the handful of the meal offering;
