Zevachim 25

Chapter 25

א צד כרת לא פריך
1 does not admit the refutation of kareth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it does not feature in the same way in both of them. For the sin-offering is brought for a sin of commission which involves kareth, whereas it is the omission to bring the Passover-offering that entails kareth.');"><sup>1</sup></span> Then let him adduce the guilt-offering too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is invalid when slaughtered under a different designation, by the same analogy. V. supra 10b, where the analogy is proposed but rejected because kareth is not involved in the guilt-offering. Since, however, Ben Azzai does not admit that this is a refutation, the analogy stands.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אשם נמי לייתי
2 - The feature common to both is that they apply to the whole community as to an individual,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering may be incurred by the whole community, just as by an individual, v. Lev. IV. The Passover-offering too, though brought by individuals, is a communal (public) sacrifice, since the whole community must bring one (Yoma 51a) . But a guilt-offering is never brought by the whole community.');"><sup>3</sup></span> Alternatively he does admit the refutation of kareth, but Ben 'Azzai had a tradition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the burnt-offering, as stated in the MISHNAH: Hence he does not infer it a fortiori at all.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אשם פריך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן ישנן בצבור כביחיד
3 And when R'Huna said [that he inferred it] afortiori, he said this only in order to sharpen his disciples.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Challenging them, as it were, to find the fallacy in his statement.');"><sup>5</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE SLAUGHTERED THE PASSOVER-OFFERING OR THE SIN-OFFERING NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME, [AND] HE RECEIVED [THE BLOOD], WENT [WITH IT], AND SPRINKLED [IT] NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME, OR IN THEIR OWN NAME AND NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME, OR NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME AND IN THEIR OWN NAME,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one of the services was for its own sake and another was for a different purpose, in the order stated.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד ואיבעית אימא צד כרת נמי פריך ובן עזאי גמרא גמיר לה והא דקאמר רב הונא קל וחומר לא אמרה אלא לחדד בה תלמידיו:
4 THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED. HOW IS 'IN THEIR OWN NAME AND NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME' MEANT? - IN THE NAME OF THE PASSOVER-SACRIFICE [FIRST] AND [THEN] IN THE NAME OF A PEACE-OFFERING.'
ה <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הפסח והחטאת ששחטן שלא לשמן קבל והלך וזרק שלא לשמן או לשמן ושלא לשמן או שלא לשמן ולשמן פסולים
5 NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME AND IN THEIR OWN NAME' [MEANS] IN THE NAME OF A PEACE-OFFERING [FIRST] AND [THEN] IN THE NAME OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING. FOR A SACRIFICE CAN BE DISQUALIFIED AT [ANY ONE OF] THE FOUR SERVICES: SLAUGHTERING, RECEIVING, CARRYING AND SPRINKLING.
ו כיצד לשמן ושלא לשמן לשם פסח ולשם שלמים שלא לשמן ולשמן לשם שלמים ולשם פסח
6 R'SIMEON DECLARES IT VALID IN THE CARRYING, BECAUSE HE ARGUED: [THE SACRIFICE] IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT SLAUGHTERING, WITHOUT RECEIVING AND WITHOUT SPRINKLING, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT CARRYING. [HOW SO]?
ז שהזבח נפסל בארבעה דברים בשחיטה ובקבול ובהילוך ובזריקה
7 ONE SLAUGHTERS IT AT THE SIDE OF THE ALTAR AND SPRINKLES [ FORTHWITH].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it is straightway sprinkled. Since then the blood may not be carried at all, the sacrifice cannot be disqualified if it is carried for a different purpose.');"><sup>7</sup></span> R'ELIEZER SAID: IF ONE GOES WHERE HE NEEDS TO GO, AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION DISQUALIFIES [IT]; WHERE HE NEED NOT GO, AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION DOES NOT DISQUALIFY [IT].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara discusses this.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ח רבי שמעון מכשיר בהילוך שהיה אומר אי אפשר שלא בשחיטה ושלא בקבלה ושלא בזריקה אבל אפשר בלא הילוך שוחט בצד המזבח וזורק
8 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Does then receiving disqualify? Surely it was taught: And they shall present:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 5.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ט רבי אליעזר אומר המהלך במקום שהוא צריך להלך מחשבה פוסלת במקום שאינו צריך להלך אין מחשבה פוסלת:
9 this refers to th receiving of the blood. You say, This refers to the receiving of the blood: yet perhaps it is not so, but rather means the sprinkling?
י <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וקבלה מי פסלה
10 When it says, And they shall dash [the blood],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');"><sup>10</sup></span> lo, sprinkling is stated, hence to what can I apply, 'And they shall present'?
יא והתניא (ויקרא א, ה) והקריבו זו קבלת הדם אתה אומר קבלת הדם או אינו אלא זריקה כשהוא אומר וזרקו הרי זריקה אמור הא מה אני מקיים והקריבו זו קבלת הדם בני אהרן הכהנים שתהא בכהן כשר ובכלי שרת
11 It must refer to the receiving of the blood. Aaron's sons, the priests<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב אמר רבי עקיבא מנין לקבלה שלא תהא [אלא] בכהן כשר ובכלי שרת נאמר כאן בני אהרן ונאמר להלן (במדבר ג, ג) אלה שמות בני אהרן הכהנים המשוחים מה להלן בכהן כשר ובכלי שרת אף כאן בכהן כשר ובכלי שרת
12 [teaches] that [these services] must be performed by a legitimate priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which excludes one of profaned birth, e.g., the issue of a divorced woman, and one suffering from a physical blemish or defect; v. Lev. XXI, 7, 17.');"><sup>11</sup></span> [robed] in priestly vestments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'service vessels' (here, robes) . 'The priests' implies that they must be vested as priests.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יג אמר רבי טרפון אקפח את בניי אם לא שמעתי להבחין הפרש בין קבלה לזריקה ואין לי לפרש
13 Said R'Akiba: How do we know that receiving must be performed by none but a legitimate priest [robed] in priestly vestments? 'Aaron's sons' is stated here, while elsewhere it says, These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. 111,3.');"><sup>13</sup></span> as there it refers to legitimate priest[s] [robed] in priestly vestments,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Legitimate, since Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons, are enumerated (v. 2) . 'Robed in priestly vestments' is deduced from the end of the verse: whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office; cf. Lev. XXI, 10: and that is consecrated to put on the garments.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יד אמר רבי עקיבא אני אפרש קבלה לא עשה בה מחשבה כמעשה זריקה עשה בה מחשבה כמעשה קבלו בחוץ אינו חייב כרת זרקו בחוץ ענוש כרת קבלוהו פסולין אין חייבין עליו זרקוהו פסולין חייבין עליו
14 so here too it means by a legitimate priest [robed] in priestly vestments. R'Tarfon observed: May I lose my sons if I have not heard a distinction made between receiving and sprinkling, yet I cannot explain [what it is]! Said R'Akiba: I will explain it.
טו אמר לו רבי טרפון העבודה את הטית ימין ושמאל אני שמעתי ואין לי לפרש אתה דורש ומסכים לשמועה בלשון הזה אמר לו עקיבא כל הפורש ממך כפורש מחייו
15 In the case of receiving intention was not made tantamount to action, whereas in the case of sprinkling intention was made tantamount to action.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to illegitimate intention and action. An illegitimate intention is now assumed to mean an intention to receive the blood in the name of a different sacrifice or to eat of its flesh after the permitted time, which would render it piggul (q.v. Glos.) . Thus an illegitimate intention at the receiving of the blood does not disqualify, which contradicts the view in the MISHNAH: - The difficulty is answered at the end of the discussion.');"><sup>15</sup></span> [Again] if one received [the blood] without [its proper precincts], he is not liable to kareth, whereas if one sprinkles [i without, he is punished with kareth.
טז אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן במחשבת פיגול כאן במחשבת שלא לשמה
16 If unfit men received it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. , lay Israelites or intoxicated priests.');"><sup>16</sup></span> they are not liable on its account, if unfit me sprinkled it, they are liable on its account.
יז דיקא נמי דקתני שהזבח נפסל ולא קתני מתפגל ש"מ:
17 Said R'Tarfon to him, By the [Temple] service! You have[not] deviated to the right or the left!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' You have stated exactly what I heard, but had forgotten.');"><sup>17</sup></span> I heard [it] yet could not explain it, whereas you investigate it and agree with [my] tradition.
יח ומחשבת פיגול לא פסלה בקבלה
18 In these words he addressed him: 'Akiba! whoever departs from thee is as though he departed from life!' - Said Raba: There is no difficulty: the one refers to an intention of piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such an intention does not disqualify at the receiving.');"><sup>18</sup></span> while the other [our Mishnah] refers to an intention for the sake of something else.
יט והתניא יכול לא תהא מחשבה מועלת אלא בזריקה בלבד מנין לרבות שחיטה וקבלה ת"ל (ויקרא ז, יח) ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו (פיגול הוא) לא ירצה בדברים המביאין לידי אכילה הכתוב מדבר
19 This too may be proved, because it teaches, FOR A SACRIFICE CAN BE DISQUALIFIED, but it does not teach, 'For a sacrifice becomes piggul'. This proves it.
כ יכול שאני מרבה אף שפיכת שיריים והקטרת אימורין
20 Now, does not an intention of piggul disqualify it [the sacrifice] at the receiving? Surely it was taught: Y might think that an intention [of piggul] is effective only at the sprinkling; whence do we know to include slaughtering and receiving?
כא ת"ל (ויקרא ז, יח) ביום השלישי לא ירצה המקריב אותו לא יחשב זריקה בכלל היתה ולמה יצתה להקיש אליה לומר לך מה זריקה מיוחדת שהיא עבודה (ומכפרת) ומעכבת כפרה אף כל עבודה ומעכבת כפרה יצאו שפיכת שיריים והקטרת אימורין שאין מעכבין את הכפרה
21 From the text, And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted. it shall be an abhorred thing [piggul];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 18.');"><sup>19</sup></span> Scripture treats of the services which lead to eating.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. which permit the consumption of the flesh; these include receiving.');"><sup>20</sup></span> You might think that I also include the pouring out of the residue [of the blood] and the burning of the emurim; therefore it states,. on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Accepted' is understood to refer to the sprinkling, which makes the sacrifice acceptable.');"><sup>21</sup></span> Now sprinkling was included in the general statement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as one of the services which 'lead to eating'.');"><sup>22</sup></span> and why was it singled out? That an analogy therewith might be drawn , intimating: as sprinkling is a service and is indispensable for atonement, so every [act which is a] service and is indispensable for atonement [is included]; thus the pouring out of the residue and the burning of the emurim are excluded, since these are not indispensable for atonement!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the intention of piggul at the reception of the blood does disqualify it,');"><sup>23</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter