Zevachim 71

בפנים בחוץ ואת הניתנין בחוץ בפנים שיאכלוהו טמאים שיקריבוהו טמאים שיאכלוהו ערלים ושיקריבוהו ערלים לשבר עצמות הפסח לאכול הימנו נא ולערב דמו בדם הפסולים כשר

OR WITHIN WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT; [OR WITH THE INTENTION] THAT UNCLEAN [PERSONS] SHOULD CONSUME IT, [OR] THAT UNCLEAN [PRIESTS] SHOULD OFFER IT;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the blood or the emurim.');">¹</span> [OR] THAT UNCIRCUMCISED [PERSONS] SHOULD EAT IT, [OR] THAT UNCIRCUMCISED PERSONS SHOULD OFFER IT; [OR WITH THE INTENTION] OF BREAKING THE BONES OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING, OR EATING THEREOF HALF-ROAST;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both of which are forbidden, Ex. XII, 9, 46.');">²</span>

שאין מחשבה פוסלת אלא בחוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו והפסח והחטאת שלא לשמן:

OR OF MINGLING THE BLOOD WITH THE BLOOD OF INVALID [SACRIFICES] IT IS VALID, BECAUSE AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION DOES NOT DISQUALIFY [A SACRIFICE] SAVE WHERE IT REFERS TO AFTER TIME OR WITHOUT BOUNDS, AND [IN THE CASE OF] A PASSOVER-OFFERING AND A SIN-OFFERING, [THE INTENTION TO SLAUGHTER THEM] FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is R'Judah's reason? - Said R'Eleazar, Two texts are written in reference to nothar.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט דרבי יהודה אמר רבי אלעזר תרי קראי כתיבי בנותר כתוב אחד אומר (שמות יב, י) לא תותירו ממנו עד בקר וכתוב אחד אומר (ויקרא ז, טו) לא יניח ממנו עד בקר אם אינו ענין להניח תנהו לענין מחשבת הינוח

One text says, And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 10.');">³</span> and another text says, He shall not leave any of it until the morning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 15. The first refers to the Passover-offering, the second to the thanks-offering. Both were peace-offerings, and therefore it need be stated for one only, and the other would follow.');">⁴</span>

ורבי יהודה האי קרא להכי הוא דאתא אי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (ויקרא ז, טו) ובשר זבח תודת שלמיו למדנו לתודה שנאכלת ליום ולילה

Since one is superfluous in respect of [actual] leaving, apply it to the intention of leaving it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus Scripture forbids the intention, and therefore the intention disqualifies.');">⁵</span> Now [does] R'Judah [hold] that this text comes for this purpose?

חליפין וולדות תמורות מנין ת"ל ובשר חטאת ואשם מנין ת"ל זבח

Surely it is required for what was taught: 'And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving [shall be eaten on the day of his offering: he shall not leave any of it until the morning]': we have thus learnt that the thanks-offering is eate a day and a night. How do we know [the same of] an exchange, an offspring, or a substitute?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text has the plural. - If the animal originally set aside for the offering is lost, and another consecrated in its stead, and then the first is found, the second is called the exchange. 'Offspring': if the consecrated animal lambed or calved before it was sacrificed. For 'substitute' v. p. 22, n. 8. All three are sacrificed as thanks-offerings.');">⁶</span>

ומנין לרבות שלמי נזיר ושלמי פסח ת"ל שלמיו לחמי תודה וחלות ורקיקים שבנזיר מנין ת"ל קרבנו כולן קורא אני בהן לא יניח

- From the text, 'And the flesh'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And' is an extension.');">⁷</span> How do we know [the same of] a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? - Because it says, '[And the flesh of] the sacrifice [etc]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The sacrifice' is superfluous, for Scripture could say, And the flesh of his peace-offerings. Hence it is understood to include these other sacrifices.');">⁸</span>

א"כ לימא קרא לא תותירו מאי לא יניח אם אינו ענין להינוח תנהו ענין למחשבת הינוח

And whence do we know to include a nazirite's peace-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. VI, 14f. This, like an ordinary thanks-offering, was accompanied by loaves of bread.');">⁹</span> and the peace-offerings of the Passover-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: the festival sacrifices (hagigah) which accompanied the Passover-offering on the eve of Passover. Tosaf. (supra 9a) : a Passover remainder, i.e., an animal consecrated as a Passover-offering but not sacrificed as such.');">¹⁰</span>

התינח להניח להוציא מאי איכא למימר

From the text, 'his peace-offerings'. Whence do we know [the same of] the loaves of the thanks-offering and a nazirite's loaves and the wafers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Heb. denotes two different kinds of loaves.');">¹¹</span>

ועוד טעמא דר' יהודה סברא הוא דתניא אמר להם רבי יהודה אי אתם מודים שאם הניחו למחר שהוא פסול אף חישב להניחו למחר פסול אלא טעמא דרבי יהודה סברא הוא וניפלוג נמי ר"י בכולהו

Because 'his offering' is written; [and] to all of these I apply [the injunction], 'he shall not leave any of it until the morning'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus R. Judah utilises the verse for a different purpose!');">¹²</span> - If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If this is the only purpose of the text.');">¹³</span>

בהי ניפלוג בשובר עצמות הפסח ולאכול ממנו נא זיבחא גופיה מי מיפסיל

let Scripture write, 'lo tothiru';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ye shall not let any remain'. Tothiru (fr. hothir) is the verb used in Ex. XII, 10, and we would expect the same here.');">¹⁴</span> why [write] 'lo yaniah'?

ע"מ שיאכלוהו טמאים ושיקריבוהו טמאים זיבחא גופיה מי מיפסיל שיאכלוהו ערלים ושיקריבוהו ערלים זיבחא גופיה מי מיפסיל לישנא אחרינא כל כמיניה

[To teach that] since it is superfluous in respect of actual leaving, apply it to the intention of leaving. Granted that this [reason] is satisfactory in respect of [the intention] to leave [the blood or the emurim], what can you say about [the intention] to carry [them] out?

לערב דמן בדם הפסולין רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר אין דם מבטל דם ליתן את הניתנין למעלה למטה למטה למעלה רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר שלא למקומו נמי מקומו קרינא ביה

Moreover R'Judah's reason is based on logic.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not a Scriptural exegesis.');">¹⁵</span> For it was taught: R'Judah said to them [the Sages]: Do you not admit that if he left it [the blood or the emurim] for the morrow, [the sacrifice] is invalid?

וליפלוג בניתנין בפנים שנתנן בחוץ והניתנין בחוץ שנתנן בפנים

So also if he intended to leave it for the morrow, it is invalid! (And do you not admit that if he carried them without, it is invalid? So also if he intended to carry them without, it is invalid).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bracketed addition a var. lec.');">¹⁶</span>

קסבר רבי יהודה בעינן מקום שיהא משולש בדם בבשר ובאימורין

- Rather, R'Judah's reason is based on logic. Now, let R'Judah disagree in the other cases too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enumerated in the MISHNAH:');">¹⁷</span>

ומי אית ליה לרבי יהודה האי סברא והתניא רבי יהודה אומר (דברים יז, א) דבר רע ריבה כאן חטאת ששחטה בדרום וחטאת שנכנס דמה לפנים פסולה

- In which case should he disagree? In the case of [intending] to break the bones of a Passover-offering and eating thereof half-roast! does then the sacrifice itself become invalid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he actually breaks the bones or eats of it half-roast. Surely not, and so the intention does not invalidate it either.');">¹⁸</span>

ולית לרבי יהודה שלישי והתנן אמר רבי יהודה הכניס בשוגג כשר הא במזיד פסול וקי"ל בשכיפר

[In the case of] the intention that unclean [persons] should eat it or that unclean [persons] should offer it! does then the sacrifice itself become invalid? [In the case of] the intention that uncircumcised persons should eat it or uncircumcised persons should offer it! is then the sacrifice itself invalidated?

השתא ומה התם עיילי עיילא אי כיפר אין אי לא כיפר לא הכא דחשיב חשובי לא כל שכן תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבי יהודה

Another version:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Other reasons why R. Judah does not dispute the other cases of the MISHNAH:');">¹⁹</span> Does it entirely depend on him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he intends that unclean or uncircumcised should partake thereof or offer it up, he may not find such to carry out his intention. Hence his intention does not count.');">²⁰</span>

וסבר ר' יהודה חטאת ששחטה בדרום

[As for the intention] to mingle its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices], R'Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintains that blood does not nullif [other] blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 35a. Hence even if he did it, it would not invalidate the sacrifice.');">²¹</span> [As for the intention] to apply below what should be applied above, and above [what should be applied] below, - R'Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintains: Even what is not its place is also called its place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 27a.');">²²</span> Then let him disagree where he applied without what should be applied within, or within, what should be applied without? - R'Judah holds: We require a place which has a threefold function, [Viz. ,] in respect of the blood, the flesh, and the emurim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 29a.');">²³</span> Does then R'Judah accept that view? Surely it was taught: R'Judah said: [Scripture states, Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blemish, even any] evil thing:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 1.');">²⁴</span> here [Scripture] extends the law to a sin-offering which one slaughtered on the south [side of the Temple court], or a sin-offering whose blood entered within [the inner sanctum], [teaching that] it is invalid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though this carrying without bounds is not in respect of a place that has that threefold function.');">²⁵</span> - But does then R'Judah not accept [this interpretation of] 'third'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 29a.');">²³</span> Surely we learnt: R'Judah said: If one carried [the blood] within in ignorance, it is valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 82a.');">²⁶</span> hence if [one did this] deliberately, it is invalid, and we have explained this as meaning where he made atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mere carrying of the blood into the inner sanctum, even deliberately, does not invalidate the sacrifice, but only its actual sprinkling');">²⁷</span> Now if in that case, where he has actually carried it within, if he made atonement [therewith] it does [invalidate the sacrifice], but if he did not make atonement, it does not: how much the more so here, where he has merely intended?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The intention alone certainly does not disqualify it, and the reason must be because R. Judah accepts the interpretation of 'third' given supra 29a.');">²⁸</span> - There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R'Judah's view. Now, does R'Judah hold that when one slaughters a sin-offering in the south