Torah Community Connections

Week 141 - Shabbat - 10 August 2002

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 1

Bet Shammai say: Whatever must be applied on the outer altar – if he applied once, he has made atonement - and for a sin-offering, if he applied twice. But Bet Hillel say: The sin-offering also, if he applied once, he has made atonement. Hence, if he applied the first in the prescribed manner, but the second after its time, he has made atonement. If he applied the first after its time and the second outside its place, it is pigul and one incurs karet on account of it.

Kehati

The sacrifices whose blood is sprinkled on the outer altar, include those that require four acts (of sprinkling); others require "two acts which are four", and some entail one act only (see next chapter). Our mishnah teaches that since after the fact - bedi'avad - one application suffices in the case of all the sacrifices to effect atonement for the owners, the "after-its-time" intention invalidates the sacrifice only if this occurred during the first sprinkling.

Bet Shammai say: Whatever - sacrifice whose blood must be applied - i.e., sprinkled on the outer altar - if he applied once only he has bedi'avad - made atonement for the owners - and - but - for a sin-offering atonement has been effected only if he applied twice - but if less, the sacrifice is invalid.

But Bet Hillel say: The sin-offering also, if he applied once, he has - bedi'avad - made atonement - as with any other sacrifice. The Gemara (Zev. 37) derives the above rules from the Scriptural text.

Hence, if he applied - according to Bet Hillel in the case of all sacrifices, and according to Bet Shammai in all except the sin-offering - the first sprinkling in the prescribed manner - without an invalidating intention, but the second sprinkling he performed intending to eat the meat after its time, he has made atonement - for the owners; since the first sprinkling was performed correctly, the intention during the second act does not disqualify the sacrifice. However,

if he applied the first sprinkling with an after its time intention - and the second sprinkling with an outside its place - intention - it is pigul - the sacrifice is thereby disqualified - and one - who eats of its meat - incurs the karet penalty on account of it as taught above (2:4) if the "after-its-time" intention came first, and then followed an "outside-its-place'' intention, the sacrifice is not rendered pigul, since that which renders permissible was performed incorrectly, i.e., the "outside-its-place'' intention annuls the pigul. Now, our mishnah points out that an "outside-its-place'' intention during the second sprinkling does not release the sacrifice from the pigul intention which took effect during the first sprinkling, with which application that which renders permissible was performed correctly.

ZEVAHIM CHAPTER 4 MISHNAH 2

All sprinklings on the inner altar, if any of them is omitted, no atonement has been effected - therefore if he applied all in the prescribed manner, but one not in the prescribed manner, it is invalid, but no karet is incurred for it.

Kehati

Having learned in the preceding mishnah regarding sacrifices whose blood is sprinkled on the outer altar, our mishnah now deals with the pigul intention in the case of sacrifices whose blood is sprinkled on the inner altar.

All sacrifices whose sprinklings must be performed on the inner golden altar located in the inner Sanctuary - if any of them is omitted, no atonement has been effected as will be explained (see 5:1-2) "one omitted application invalidates" –

therefore if he applied all in the prescribed manner without an invalidating intention - but one of them not in the prescribed manner e.g., with an "after-its-time" intention, it- the sacrifice - is invalid; - since all the sprinklings constitute one sacrificial act, one incorrect application disqualifies the sacrifice, but no karet is incurred by the person who eats of its meat, because pigul applies only if the "after-its-time" intention accompanied all the applications, in accordance with the halakhic ruling that "half of an act that renders permissible does not cause pigul" (i.e., all the applications collectively render the sacrifice permissible, so that partially they constitute merely "half an act that renders permissible," wherein a pigul intention does not render the sacrifice pigul). In the Gemara (Zev. 41b) our mishnah is interpreted thus: "if he applied all in the prescribed manner" - i.e., in respect of the pigul intention, "but one not in the prescribed manner" - i.e., in respect of pigul, however with an "outside-its-place'' intention or under a different name, or even without an invalidating intention –

it is invalid, but no karet is incurred - since half an act that renders permissible does not cause pigul.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives