Zevachim

OR WITHIN WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT; [OR WITH THE INTENTION] THAT UNCLEAN [PERSONS] SHOULD CONSUME IT, [OR] THAT UNCLEAN [PRIESTS] SHOULD OFFER IT;1 [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;2 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. GEMARA. What is R. Judah's reason? — Said R. Eleazar, Two texts are written in reference to nothar. One text says, And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning,3 and another text says, He shall not leave any of it until the morning.4 Since one is superfluous in respect of [actual] leaving, apply it to the intention of leaving it.5 Now [does] R. Judah [hold] that this text comes for this purpose? 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 eaten a day and a night. How do we know [the same of] an exchange, an offspring, or a substitute?6 — From the text, ‘And the flesh’.7 How do we know [the same of] a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? — Because it says, ‘[And the flesh of] the sacrifice [etc]’.8 And whence do we know to include a nazirite's peace-offering9 and the peace-offerings of the Passover-offering?10 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?11 Because ‘his offering’ is written; [and] to all of these I apply [the injunction], ‘he shall not leave any of it until the morning’!12 — If so,13 let Scripture write, ‘lo tothiru’;14 why [write] ‘lo yaniah’? [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? Moreover R. Judah's reason is based on logic.15 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? 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.)16 — Rather, R. Judah's reason is based on logic. Now, let R. Judah disagree in the other cases too?17 — 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?18 [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? Another version:19 Does it entirely depend on him?20 [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 nullify [other] blood.21 [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.22 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.23 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:24 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?25 — But does then R. Judah not accept [this interpretation of] ‘third’?23 Surely we learnt: R. Judah said: If one carried [the blood] within in ignorance, it is valid;26 hence if [one did this] deliberately, it is invalid, and we have explained this as meaning where he made atonement.27 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?28 — 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 and therefore it need be stated for one only, and the other would follow. 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. include these other sacrifices. (supra 9a): a Passover remainder, i.e., an animal consecrated as a Passover-offering but not sacrificed as such. here. either. out his intention. Hence his intention does not count. its actual sprinkling (called ‘making atonement’) on the inner altar. interpretation of ‘third’ given supra 29a.