Torah Community Connections

Week 141 - Friday - 9 August 2002

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 5

If one slaughters holy things to eat the fetus or the afterbirth outside, he has not rendered it pigul. If one performs melikah on the nape of turtledoves inside to eat their eggs outside, he has not rendered it pigul. The milk of holy things and the eggs of pigeons - one is not on their account liable to pigul, notar, or uncleanness.

Kehati

Our mishnah further elaborates the "after its time" or "outside its place" intentions, and teaches that if one intends to eat inedible things after the prescribed time, or even edible things which however are not an integral part of the sacrifice, it is not rendered pigul.

If one slaughters holy things - female offerings, e.g., a ewe or a cow (the term mukdashim in the Mishnah invariably signifies female animals Bartenura) - to eat the fetus or the afterbirth - i.e., the membrane enveloping the fetus; if he intended to eat any of these outside its place or after its prescribed time, he has not rendered it pigul - i.e., his intention to eat it outside its place or after its time did not disqualify the sacrifice, because it is abnormal to eat the fetus or the afterbirth which most people discard (Rashi; see Bartenura's different interpretation; see also Tosefot R. Akiva Eiger and Reshash).

If one performs melikah on the nape of sacrificial turtledoves - i.e., the prescribed manner of killing these - inside - in the Temple Court, intending while performing melikah their necks: - to eat their eggs - found in their innards - outside their prescribed place or time - he has not rendered it - the sacrifice pigul - invalid - by intending to eat it outside its prescribed place, or after the prescribed time since they are not integral parts of the sacrifice; "performing melikah" means that the priest indents with his nail the head of the turtledove from the back. The turtledoves and young pigeons offered up as sacrifices (Lev. 1:15), rather than being slaughtered (shehitah) had melikah performed on their necks, as explained in Chapters. 6-7.

The milk of holy things - found in female sacrificial animals after slaughtering - and eggs of pigeons - found within after the nape pinching

one is not on their account liable to pigul, notar or uncleanness - as explained in the preceding mishnah that if the sacrifice was pigul, or the milk and eggs were notar (left over after the time limit for their consumption), or an unclean person drank the milk or ate the eggs, he does not incur the karet penalty, because these are not integral parts of the sacrifice. But a wrong intention regarding a fetus or the afterbirth does render liable to pigul, notar or the trespass of uncleanness since they are an integral part of the mother animal; moreover there are some people who eat these.

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 6

If he slaughtered it intending to leave over its blood or its portions for the next day, or to take them outside - R. Yehudah declares it invalid, but the Sages declare it valid. If he slaughtered it intending to apply it to the ramp, not against the base, above, what must be sprinkled below, below, what must be sprinkled above, outside, what must be sprinkled inside, inside, what must be sprinkled outside, that those unclean shall eat it, that those unclean shall offer it up, that those circumcised shall eat it, that those uncircumcised shall offer it up, to break the bones of the pesah or eat of it when raw, to mix its blood with the blood of the disqualified - it is valid, because the intention disqualifies only in regard to after its time or outside its place, and the pesah and the sin-offering if not under their own name.

Kehati

We learn in this mishnah that an after-its-time or outside-its-place intention alone disqualifies a sacrifice, whereas the pesah and sin- offering are disqualified only when sacrificed under a different name.

If he slaughtered it - the sacrifice - intending to leave over its blood or its portions for the next day - i.e., rather than intending to sprinkle the blood or burn the portions on the next day, he merely thought of leaving them for the following day - or to take them - the blood or the portions outside - the Temple Court, without planning to offer them there –

R. Yehudah declares it - the sacrifice - invalid - on account of this intention, since in his view the mere intention of any act that disqualifies a sacrifice likewise renders it invalid; thus, since if he left the sacrificial blood or portions which must be burnt, for the next day, or took these outside the Temple Court, as intended, the sacrifice would be invalid, his very intention of leaving over or taking outside also disqualifies the sacrifice but the Sages declare it- the sacrifice valid, since he did not intend to burn the portions, sprinkle the blood or eat the meat after the time-limit, or do so in the wrong place, he did not disqualify the sacrifice, although he intended to leave it for the next day or take it outside.

If he slaughtered it - the sacrifice -intending to apply it - i.e., sprinkle the blood on - to the ramp - of the altar, but not against the base, i.e., in the wrong place, or to apply above the red line what must be sprinkled below the red line, or below the red line what must be sprinkled above the red line, or to sprinkle the blood outside - on the outer altar what must be sprinkled inside - on the altar in the inner Sanctuary, or inside what must be sprinkled outside; or if while slaughtering the sacrifice he had in mind

that those unclean -priests - shall eat of it or that those unclean, i.e., priests - shall offer it up -shall burn the portions on the altar - or that those uncircumcised, i.e., priests shall eat it - or that those uncircumcised, i.e., priests shall offer it up - unclean and uncircumcised priests must not eat sacrificial meat or burn the portions on the altar; or if while slaughtering the pesah sacrifice he intended to

break the bones of the pesah sacrifice, in contravention of (Ex. 12:46): "and you shall not break a bone of it," or eat of it when raw whereas (ibid. ibid. 9): "you shall not eat of it raw," or if he intended to mix its blood - that of the sacrifice he slaughtered - with the blood of the disqualified - sacrifices, as will be explained (see 8:7) with all such intentions it - the sacrifice is valid

because the intention disqualifies the sacrifice only if while performing one of the four sacrificial acts - slaughtering, collecting, conveying and sprinkling the blood - his intention was set in regard to eating or burning after its time or outside its place and in the case of the pesah and the sin-offering if while performing one of the four sacrificial acts he intended to proceed not under their own name - that of pesah and sin-offering respectively but under the name of another sacrifice. According to the Gemara, R. Yehudah, who disagrees in the first section of the mishnah, agrees that the intentions enumerated in the second section do not disqualify the sacrifice, since regarding the misplaced blood sprinkling he holds that if one intends to sprinkle the blood on the altar, even in the wrong place, it is as if he had the proper place in mind, provided he did not intend to sprinkle it outside the Temple Court. So, too, regarding the intention "that those unclean (i.e., priests) shall eat it, that those unclean (i.e., priests) shall offer it up...to break the bones of the pesah." R. Yehudah agrees that they do not disqualify the sacrifice, since even the very act does not render it invalid because they are not connected with the sacrifice as such. As to the intention “to mix its blood with the blood of the disqualified" R. Yehudah holds that blood cannot annul blood, and since the actual mixing does not disqualify, an intended mixing cannot do so (see Tosefot Yom Tov and Tosefot R. Akiva Eiger).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives