Zevachim — Daf 41b

אבל יותרת ושתי כליות דלא כתיבן בגופיה אימא לא קא משמע לן:

אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לרב פפא והא תנא פר יוה"כ לכל מה שאמר בענין קאמר תנאי היא תנא דבי רב מרבי הכי תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לא מרבי הכי

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפני מה נאמרו יותרת ושתי כליות בפר כהן משיח ולא נאמרו בפר העלם דבר של צבור משל למלך בשר ודם שזעם על אוהבו ומיעט בסרחונו מפני חיבתו

ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפני מה נאמרה (ויקרא ד, ו) פרוכת הקדש בפר כהן משיח ולא נאמר בפר העלם דבר של צבור משל למלך בשר ודם שסרחה עליו מדינה אם מיעוטה סרחה פמליא שלו מתקיימת אם רובה סרחה אין פמליא שלו מתקיימת:

לפיכך אם נתן כולן כתיקנן כו': תנן התם פיגל בקומץ ולא בלבונה בלבונה ולא בקומץ רבי מאיר אומר פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

וחכמים אומרים אין בו כרת עד שיפגל בכל המתיר

א"ר שמעון בן לקיש לא תימא טעמא דר' מאיר דקסבר מפגלין בחצי מתיר אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנתן את הקומץ במחשבה והלבונה בשתיקה קסבר כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה

ממאי מדקתני לפיכך אם נתן כולן כתיקנן ואחת שלא כתיקנה פסול ואין בו כרת הא אחת שלא כתיקנה וכולן כתיקנן פיגול

מני אילימא רבנן הא אמרי רבנן אין מפגלין בחצי מתיר אלא רבי מאיר

ואי טעמא דרבי מאיר משום דמפגלין בחצי מתיר הוא אפילו כדקתני נמי לאו משום דקסבר כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה

אמר רבי שמואל בר יצחק לעולם רבנן היא ומאי כתיקנן כתיקנן לפיגול

והא מדקתני לפיכך אם נתן כולן כתיקנן ואחת שלא כתיקנן פסול ואין בו כרת מכלל דתיקנה להכשירה הוא דאתא

אמר רבא מאי שלא כתיקנה חוץ למקומו רב אשי אמר שלא לשמו

מכלל דכי לא עביד לה חוץ למקומו ושלא לשמו מחייב

איידי דתנא רישא פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת תנא נמי סיפא פסול ואין בו כרת:

מיתיבי במה דברים אמורים בדמים הניתנין על מזבח החיצון

but [as for the burning of] the lobe and the two kidneys, which are not prescribed in that passage, I would say [that it is] not [intimated]. Therefore the text informs us [that it is not so]. R. Huna the son of R. Nathan said to R. Papa: But surely the Tanna states, ‘"with the bullock" includes the bullock of the Day of Atonement in respect of everything which is prescribed in the text’?1 — It is a controversy of Tannaim. The Tanna of the Academy2 includes it in this way, while the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael includes it in that way. The School of R. Ishmael taught: Why are the lobe and the two kidneys mentioned in connection with the anointed priest's bullock, but not in connection with the community's bullock for unwitting transgression? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood who was angry with his friend, but spoke little of his offence, out of his love for him.3 The School of R. Ishmael also taught: Why is the ‘veil of the sanctuary’ mentioned in connection with the anointed priest's bullock, but not in connection with the community's bullock of unwitting transgression?4 It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood against whom a province sinned — If a minority offended, his retainers remain [with them], but if the majority offend, his retainers do not remain [with them].5 THEREFORE, IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. We learnt elsewhere: If [the priest] made a piggul intention at the [burning of the] fistful [of flour] but not at [the burning of the] incense,6 [or] at the frankincense but not at the fistful, R. Meir says that it is piggul, and one is liable to kareth on its account;7 but the Sages maintain: It does not involve kareth unless [the priest] makes a piggul intention for the whole mattir. R. Simeon b. Lakish commented: Do not say that R. Meir's reason is because he holds that you can make a [sacrifice] piggul in half a mattir. Rather the circumstances here are that [the priest] presented the fistful [on the altar] with a [piggul] intention, and the frankincense in silence. He [R. Meir] holds [that] when one does [a thing], he does it with his first intention.8 How do you know it? — Because [the Tanna] teaches: THEREFORE IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. Hence [if he applies] one correctly and all [the others] incorrectly, it is piggul. With whom does this agree? If with the Rabbis? Surely the Rabbis say [that] you cannot make piggul at half a mattir? Hence it must be R. Meir; now if R. Meir's reason is that you can make piggul at half a mattir, then even in the conditions which he teaches it is still piggul.9 Hence it must surely be because he holds that when one does [a thing], he does it with his first intention. Said R. Samuel b. Isaac: In truth it agrees with the Rabbis, and what is meant by CORRECTLY? In the proper manner for piggul.10 But since [the Tanna] teaches: THEREFORE, IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH, it follows that INCORRECTLY means [in a manner] to make it fit?11 — Said Raba: What does INCORRECTLY mean? — [With an intention of eating it] without bounds. R. Ashi said: [It means] under a different designation. Hence it12 follows that if [the priest] did not do it [with an intention of consuming it] without bounds or under a different designation, one is liable?13 — Because the first clause teaches, IT IS PIGGUL, AND ONE IS LIABLE TO KARETH ON ITS ACCOUNT, the second clause too teaches, IT IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.14 An objection is raised: When is this said?15 In the case of blood that is presented on the outer altar. which are deduced from ‘eth’ etc. are learnt in this way. taught’. rather than state them explicitly. sanctuary. But in IV, 17, which treats of the latter, Scripture merely mentions ‘the veil’ not the veil of the sanctuary. holiness, and there is no sanctuary left. (q.v. Glos.), and each is only half a mattir. done with the same intention as the first. But that is R. Meir's view, not the Rabbis. consuming it without bounds. Actually then even if he made the second sprinkling in silence it would not be piggul, but INCORRECTLY is taught for the sake of parallelism. For in the first clause, dealing with the outer sacrifices, he teaches IF HE APPLIED THE FIRST WITH THE INTENTION OF CONSUMING IT AFTER TIME, AND THE SECOND WITH THE INTENTION OF CONSUMING IT WITHOUT BOUNDS, IT IS PIGGUL AND INVOLVES KARETH. There, this second intention is particularly stated in order to teach that it does not nullify the first and free it from piggul, because since a single application permits it, a single application makes it piggul. For that reason he teaches in the second clause, dealing with the inner sacrifices, that here the second intention does nullify the first and free it from piggul, though this in truth need not be taught, since in any case, even if he remained silent at the second application, it would not be piggul, as the Rabbis do not hold that he makes the second application with the same intention as the first.