Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 30, 2018 | ื˜ืดื– ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 47

Whose intent is important in the sacrificies – the kohen or the owner of the sacrifice? A new opinion is brought and Abaye brings two others who seem to have a similar opinion regarding other areas of halacha. The fifth perekย specifies details relating to all the sacrifices regarding location of each sacrificial rite. It begins with kodshei kodashim.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืžืชืขืกืง ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ (ื•ื™ืงืจื ื, ื”) ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืช ื‘ืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ืœืคื ื™ ื”’ ืขื“ ืฉืชื”ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœืฉื ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืงืจ

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: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lordโ€ (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.

ื”ืœ ื–ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื ื• ื”ื™ื ืœืขื›ื‘ ืžื ื™ืŸ ื”ืœ (ื•ื™ืงืจื ื™ื˜, ื”) ืœืจืฆื•ื ื›ื ืชื–ื‘ื—ื”ื• ืœื“ืขืชื›ื ื–ื‘ื™ื—ื•:

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: โ€œWith your will you shall slaughter itโ€ (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., with your full awareness you shall slaughter it, in the form of a purposeful action.

ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื”ื•ืœื›ืช ืืœื ืื—ืจ ื”ืขื•ื‘ื“: ืžืชื ื™’ ื“ืœื ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžืคื’ืœื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืž”ื˜ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ ื”ืžืงืจื™ื‘

ยง 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: โ€œThen he who sacrifices shall sacrifice his offering to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 15:4). The term โ€œhe who sacrificesโ€ 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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืจ”ืฉ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ื–ื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื•ื–ื” ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืŸ

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืขื•ื‘ื“ ื›ื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืคื•ืกืœ

The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is as we learned in a mishna (แธคullin 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.

ืจ”ืฉ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืจ ืœื”ืฆื ื™ืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื ื™ืขื™ืŸ ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ืœื–ื” ื•ื”ืฆื ื™ืขื• ื•ื‘ื ืื—ืจ ื•ื”ื•ืฆื™ืื• ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื–ื” ื‘ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืฉืœ ื–ื”

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.

ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

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: โ€œWith your will you shall slaughter itโ€ (Leviticus 19:5)?

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

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 personโ€™s intention is effective for the action of another, whereas concerning outside the Temple, we do not say this.

ืจ”ืฉ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืจ’ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ื›ื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

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?

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ื›ื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจืช ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืฉื‘ืช ืžืœืื›ืช ืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื”:

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 personโ€™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 personโ€™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.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืžืงื•ืžืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ

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.

ืคืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ื™ืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ืงื™ื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื“ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื”ื–ื™ื” ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืœ ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ื•ืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ืžืชื ื” ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ืช ืฉื™ืจื™ ื”ื“ื ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ืคืš ืขืœ ื™ืกื•ื“ ืžืขืจื‘ื™ ืฉืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ื•ืื ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืœื ืขื›ื‘:

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.

ืคืจื™ื ื”ื ืฉืจืคื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ื ื”ื ืฉืจืคื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ืงื™ื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื“ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื”ื–ื™ื” ืขืœ ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ื•ืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื–ื”ื‘

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,

ืžืชื ื” ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ืช ืฉื™ืจื™ ื”ื“ื ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ืคืš ืขืœ ื™ืกื•ื“ ืžืขืจื‘ื™ ืฉืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ื•ืื ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืœื ืขื™ื›ื‘ ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ื ืฉืจืคื™ืŸ ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื“ืฉืŸ:

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.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ืงื™ื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืืฉื ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื“ืงื™ื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ืฉื™ื™ืจื™ื”

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.

ื•ืœื ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ืœืงืžืŸ ืืฉื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืืฉื ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ืงื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ

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.

ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืกื‘ืจ ืงื™ื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ืฉื™ื™ืจื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื”ื“ืจ ืชื ื™ื™ื”

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 priestโ€™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.

ื“ืชื ื™ื (ื•ื™ืงืจื ื™ื“, ื“) ื•ืœืงื— ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืช”ืœ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžื” ื ืชื™ื ื” ื‘ืขืฆืžื• ืฉืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ืืฃ ืœืงื™ื—ื” ื‘ืขืฆืžื• ืฉืœ ื›ื”ืŸ

This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Negaโ€™im 9:2): The Torah states with regard to the guilt offering of a leper: โ€œAnd 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 footโ€ (Leviticus 14:14). One might have thought that he should take it in a vessel; therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd the priest shall put.โ€ Just as putting the blood on the ear, thumb, and big toe must be performed with the priestโ€™s own body, so too, taking of the blood is performed with the priestโ€™s own body, not with a service vessel.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ืœืžื–ื‘ื— ื›ืŸ ืช”ืœ (ื•ื™ืงืจื ื™ื“, ื™ื’) ื›ื™ ื›ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืืฉื ื”ื•ื ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ื›ืœื™ ืืฃ ืืฉื ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื ืžืฆืืช ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฉื ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉื ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ืืช ื“ืžื• ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื–ื” ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœื• ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื‘ื ืœื• ืืฆืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ื–ื” ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ืœื• ืืฆืœ ืžืฆื•ืจืข:

The baraita continues: One might have thought that even with regard to the blood of the leperโ€™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: โ€œFor as the sin offering is, so is the guilt offeringโ€ (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 leperโ€™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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 47

ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืžืชืขืกืง ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ (ื•ื™ืงืจื ื, ื”) ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืช ื‘ืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ืœืคื ื™ ื”’ ืขื“ ืฉืชื”ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœืฉื ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืงืจ

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: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lordโ€ (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.

ื”ืœ ื–ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื ื• ื”ื™ื ืœืขื›ื‘ ืžื ื™ืŸ ื”ืœ (ื•ื™ืงืจื ื™ื˜, ื”) ืœืจืฆื•ื ื›ื ืชื–ื‘ื—ื”ื• ืœื“ืขืชื›ื ื–ื‘ื™ื—ื•:

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: โ€œWith your will you shall slaughter itโ€ (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., with your full awareness you shall slaughter it, in the form of a purposeful action.

ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื”ื•ืœื›ืช ืืœื ืื—ืจ ื”ืขื•ื‘ื“: ืžืชื ื™’ ื“ืœื ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžืคื’ืœื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืž”ื˜ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ ื”ืžืงืจื™ื‘

ยง 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: โ€œThen he who sacrifices shall sacrifice his offering to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 15:4). The term โ€œhe who sacrificesโ€ 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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืจ”ืฉ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ื–ื” ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื•ื–ื” ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืŸ

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืœืขื•ื‘ื“ ื›ื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืคื•ืกืœ

The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is as we learned in a mishna (แธคullin 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.

ืจ”ืฉ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืจ ืœื”ืฆื ื™ืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื ื™ืขื™ืŸ ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ืœื–ื” ื•ื”ืฆื ื™ืขื• ื•ื‘ื ืื—ืจ ื•ื”ื•ืฆื™ืื• ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื–ื” ื‘ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืฉืœ ื–ื”

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.

ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

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: โ€œWith your will you shall slaughter itโ€ (Leviticus 19:5)?

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœื™ืช ืœื”ื• ื“ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

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 personโ€™s intention is effective for the action of another, whereas concerning outside the Temple, we do not say this.

ืจ”ืฉ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืจ’ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ื›ื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

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?

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ื›ื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจืช ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืฉื‘ืช ืžืœืื›ืช ืžื—ืฉื‘ืช ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื”:

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 personโ€™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 personโ€™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.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืžืงื•ืžืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ

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.

ืคืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ื™ืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ืงื™ื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื“ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื”ื–ื™ื” ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืœ ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ื•ืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ืžืชื ื” ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ืช ืฉื™ืจื™ ื”ื“ื ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ืคืš ืขืœ ื™ืกื•ื“ ืžืขืจื‘ื™ ืฉืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ื•ืื ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืœื ืขื›ื‘:

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.

ืคืจื™ื ื”ื ืฉืจืคื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ื ื”ื ืฉืจืคื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ืงื™ื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ื“ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื”ื–ื™ื” ืขืœ ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ื•ืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื–ื”ื‘

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,

ืžืชื ื” ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ืช ืฉื™ืจื™ ื”ื“ื ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ืคืš ืขืœ ื™ืกื•ื“ ืžืขืจื‘ื™ ืฉืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ื•ืื ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืœื ืขื™ื›ื‘ ืืœื• ื•ืืœื• ื ืฉืจืคื™ืŸ ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื“ืฉืŸ:

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.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื ืžื™ ื•ืงื™ื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืืฉื ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื“ืงื™ื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ืฉื™ื™ืจื™ื”

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.

ื•ืœื ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ืœืงืžืŸ ืืฉื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืืฉื ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ืงื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžืŸ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ

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.

ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืกื‘ืจ ืงื™ื‘ื•ืœ ื“ืžื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ืฉื™ื™ืจื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื”ื“ืจ ืชื ื™ื™ื”

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 priestโ€™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.

ื“ืชื ื™ื (ื•ื™ืงืจื ื™ื“, ื“) ื•ืœืงื— ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืช”ืœ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžื” ื ืชื™ื ื” ื‘ืขืฆืžื• ืฉืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ืืฃ ืœืงื™ื—ื” ื‘ืขืฆืžื• ืฉืœ ื›ื”ืŸ

This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Negaโ€™im 9:2): The Torah states with regard to the guilt offering of a leper: โ€œAnd 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 footโ€ (Leviticus 14:14). One might have thought that he should take it in a vessel; therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd the priest shall put.โ€ Just as putting the blood on the ear, thumb, and big toe must be performed with the priestโ€™s own body, so too, taking of the blood is performed with the priestโ€™s own body, not with a service vessel.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ืœืžื–ื‘ื— ื›ืŸ ืช”ืœ (ื•ื™ืงืจื ื™ื“, ื™ื’) ื›ื™ ื›ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืืฉื ื”ื•ื ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ื›ืœื™ ืืฃ ืืฉื ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื ืžืฆืืช ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฉื ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉื ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ืืช ื“ืžื• ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื–ื” ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœื• ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื‘ื ืœื• ืืฆืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ื–ื” ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ืœื• ืืฆืœ ืžืฆื•ืจืข:

The baraita continues: One might have thought that even with regard to the blood of the leperโ€™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: โ€œFor as the sin offering is, so is the guilt offeringโ€ (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 leperโ€™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.

Scroll To Top