Zevachim 19

Chapter 19

א השוחט את הבהמה ע"מ לזרוק דמה לעבודת כוכבים ולהקטיר חלבה לעבודת כוכבים ר' יוחנן אמר אסורה מחשבין מעבודה לעבודה וילפינן חוץ מפנים
1 If one slaughters an animal with the express intention of sprinkling its blood or burning its fat to an idol, - R'Johanan said: It is forbidden [for any use] ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even it he did not eventually sprinkle it thus,');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ריש לקיש אמר מותרת אין מחשבין מעבודה לעבודה ולא ילפינן חוץ מפנים
2 [for] an [effective] intention can be expressed at one service respect to another service, and we learn 'without' from 'within'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Idolatrous sprinkling of the blood etc. is naturally done without the Temple, while the illegitimate action of piggul is done within the Temple.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא אמר ריש לקיש אבל פנים מפנים אימא מודי ליה לרבי יוחנן
3 Resh Lakish rules that it is permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It he did not eventually sprinkle it idolatrously.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד ואי אשמעינן הא בהא קאמר רבי יוחנן אבל בההיא אימא מודי ליה לריש לקיש צריכי
4 for an [effective] intention cannot be expressed at one service in respect of another service, and we do not learn 'without' from 'within'.
ה כי אתא רב דימי אמר מתיב רב ירמיה לסיועיה לרבי יוחנן ורבי אילא לסיועיה לריש לקיש
5 [Now these are both necessary.] For if we were informed [of their views] in the latter case, I might argue that Resh Lakish rules [thus only] in this instance, yet he agrees with R'Johanan [that] 'within' [is learnt] from 'within'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if one slaughters a sacrifice with the intention of sprinkling its blood in the name of a different sacrifice, his illegitimate intention is in respect of something that is done within, and therefore we learn by analogy from piggul that his intention is effective.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו רב ירמיה לסיועיה לרבי יוחנן ומה במקום שאם אמר הריני שוחט חוץ לזמנו שהוא כשר שחטו על מנת לזרוק דמו חוץ לזמנו פסול מקום שאם אמר הריני שוחט שלא לשמו פסול שחטו על מנת לזרוק דמו שלא לשמו אינו דין שיהא פסול
6 While if we were informed [of their views] in the former instance, I might argue that R'Johanan rules [thus only] there, yet he agrees with Resh Lakish in the present case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By reversing the argument.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז מתקיף לה רבא בר אהילאי מה לחוץ לזמנו שכן כרת
7 Thus both are required.
ח אלא אמר רבא בר אהילאי הכי קאמר ומה מקום שאם אמר הריני שוחט חוץ למקומו שהוא כשר שחטו על מנת לזרוק דמו חוץ למקומו פסול מקום שאם אמר הריני שוחט שלא לשמו שהוא פסול [שחטו ע"מ] לזרוק דמו שלא לשמו אינו דין שיהא פסול
8 When R'Dimi came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. R. Dimi and Rabin were two Palestinian amoraim who travelled between the Palestinian and the Babylonian academics to transmit the teachings of one to the other.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט מתקיף לה רב אשי מה לחוץ למקומו שכן נוהג בכל הזבחים תאמר בשלא לשמו שאינו נוהג אלא בפסח וחטאת
9 he said: R'Jeremiah raised an objection in support of R'Johanan, while R'Ela [did so] in support of Resh Lakish.
י אלא אמר רב אשי הכי קאמר ומה במקום שאם אמר הריני שוחט לשם פלוני שהוא כשר לזרוק דמו (שלא לשמו) לשם פלוני פסול מקום שאם אמר הריני שוחט שלא לשמן שהוא פסול [שחטו ע"מ] לזרוק דמן שלא לשמן אינו דין שיהא פסול
10 R'Jeremiah in support of R'Johanan: If it is valid where one says, 'Behold, I slaughter after its time [for slaughtering],'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since whenever he slaughters it, that is the time,');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יא רבי אילא לסיועיה לריש לקיש לא תאמר בזריקה ותיתי מק"ו מבינייא משחיטה וקבלה למאי הלכתא כתב רחמנא לומר דאין מחשבין מעבודה לעבודה
11 yet it is invalid if one slaughters it with the intention sprinkling the blood after time; then seeing that it is invalid if he declares, 'Behold, I slaughter for the sak something else,' is it not logical that it is invalid if one slaughters it with the intention of sprinkling the blood for the sake of something else?
יב מתקיף לה רב פפא ודלמא דמחשבין מעבודה לעבודה
12 To this Raba B'Ahilai demurred: As for [intending to sprinkle its blood] after time, the reason [that this invalidates it even at the slaughtering] is that it entails kareth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This illegitimate intention renders the flesh piggul immediately, so that if one eats it even within the permitted time he is liable to kareth. Since it is so strict, it is natural that an illegitimate intention in respect of one service expressed at an earlier service is effective.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יג אם כן לשתוק קרא מיניה ותיתי מקל וחומר דרב אשי
13 Rather said Raba B'Ahilai, This is his argument: If it is valid where one says, 'Behold, I slaughter [this sacrifice] without its precincts,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his declaration cannot negative the fact that he is slaughtering it within its precincts.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יד ואידך פריך הכי מה להנך שכן טעונות צפון וישנן בחטאות הפנימיות
14 yet it is invalid when one slaughters it with the intention of sprinkling its blood without its precincts; then seeing that it is invalid when he declares, 'Behold, I slaughter for the sake of something else,'is it not logical that it is invalid if one slaughters it with the intention of sprinkling the b for the sake of something else?
טו ואידך השתא מיהא בשלמים קיימין
15 To this R'Ashi demurred: As for [its unfitness when one intends sprinkling the blood] without its precincts, the reason is because it operates [as a disqualification] in the case of all sacrifices.
טז איתמר שחטה לשמה לזרוק דמה שלא לשמה רב נחמן אמר פסולה רבה אמר כשרה והדר ביה רבה לגבי רב נחמן מק"ו דרב אשי:
16 Will you say that the same applies in the case of an intention for the sake of a different sacrifice which does not operate [thus] save in the case of a Passover-offering and a sin-offering?
יז רבי אליעזר אומר אף (את) האשם: תניא אומר ר' אליעזר חטאת באה על חטא ואשם בא על חטא מה חטאת שלא לשמה פסולה אף אשם שלא לשמו פסול
17 Rather said R'Ashi, This is how he argues: If it is valid where one says, 'Behold, I slaughter [this sacrifice] in the name of so-and-so,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For change of name is a disqualification at the sprinkling, but not at the slaughtering.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יח אמר לו רבי יהושע לא אם אמרת בחטאת שכן דמה למעלה
18 yet it is invalid [if one declares his intention] to sprinkle its blood for the sake of so-and-so; then seeing that when he declares, 'Behold, I slaughter [it] for the sake of something else,' it is invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz.,in the case of a Passover-offering and a sin-offering.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יט אמר לו רבי אליעזר פסח יוכיח שדמו למטה ושחטו שלא לשמו פסול
19 is it not logical that it is invalid if he slaughters it with the intention of sprinkling the blood for the sake of something else?
כ אמר לו רבי יהושע מה לפסח שכן זמנו קבוע
20 R'Ela [raised an objection] in support of Resh Lakish: Let it not be stated in the case of sprinkling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an intention for a different sacrifice disqualifies it.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
כא אמר לו רבי אליעזר חטאת תוכיח
21 and it could be inferred a miniori from slaughtering and receiving;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It slaughtering for the sake of a different sacrifice disqualifies, though it is valid when done by a zar (lay-Israelite) , how much the more sprinkling, which may not be performed by a zar. And if you answer that slaughtering may be more stringent because a Passover-offering slaughtered for others than those enrolled for it is invalid; then let receiving prove it, where this disqualification does not operate.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
כב אמר לו רבי יהושע
22 then for what purpose did the Divine Law state [it]? To teach that you cannot [effectively] express an intention in respect of one service at a [previous service.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the illegitimate intention in respect of sprinkling must be expressed at the sprinkling.');"><sup>14</sup></span> To this R'Papa demurred: Yet perhaps [its purpose is on the contrary to intimate] that you can express an intention in respect of one service at a [previous] service? - If so, let Scripture be silent about i and infer it by R'Ashi's a minori argument. And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan: How does he rebut this argument?');"><sup>15</sup></span> - Refute [the argument] thus: as for those [slaughtering and receiving], the reason may be that they require the north<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are performed at the north side of the altar.');"><sup>16</sup></span> and are present at the inner sin-offerings. And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish: how does he rebut this argument?');"><sup>17</sup></span> - Now, at all events, we are discussing peace-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are not slaughtered at the north nor on the inner altar. Hence the argument does not apply.');"><sup>18</sup></span> It was stated: If one slaughters it in its own name with the intention of sprinkling its blood for the sake something else, - R'Nahman says: It is invalid; Rabbah says: It is valid. But Rabbah retracted on account of R'Ashi's a minori argument. R, ELIEZER SAID: THE GUILT-OFFERING TOO. It was taught: R'Eliezer said: A sin-offering comes on account of sin, and a guilt- offering comes on account of sin: just as a sin-offering [slaughtered] under a different designation is invalid, so is a guilt-offering invalid [if slaughtered] under a different designation. Said R'Joshua to him: That is not so. If you say [thus] of the sin-offering, [the reason is] because its blood [sprinkled] above [the scarlet line].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood of some sacrifices was sprinkled on the upper half of the altar, and the blood of other sacrifices was sprinkled on the lower half; a scarlet line on the altar demarcated them. - The fact that the blood of the sin-offering was sprinkled above that line may be the reason for greater stringency.');"><sup>19</sup></span> Said R'Eliezer to him: Let the Passover-offering prove it: though its blood is [sprinkled] below, yet if one slaughters it for the sake of something else it is invalid. As for the Passover-offering, replied R'Joshua, the reason is that it has a fixed time. Said R'Eliezer to him: Then let t sin-offering prove it. R'Joshua replied:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter