Torah Community Connections

Week 141 - Sunday - 4 August 2002

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 4

The pesah and the sin-offering which were slaughtered not under their own name, collected, conveyed and sprinkled not under their own name, or under their own name and not under their own name, or not under their own name and under their own name, are invalid. How under their own name and not under their own name? As a pesah and as a peace-offering; not under their own name and under their own name? As a peace-offering and as a pesah. For a sacrifice is rendered invalid by four things: slaughtering, collecting, conveying and sprinkling. R. Shimon declares it valid when conveying, for R. Shimon used to say: it is impossible without slaughtering, without collecting and without sprinkling, but it is possible without conveying - he slaughters beside the altar and sprinkles. R. Eleazar says: If one conveys where one is required to pass, an intention renders invalid, but where one is not required to pass, an intention does not render invalid.

Kehati

Our mishnah teaches that the mere mental substitution of name during the four acts of the sacrificial service - slaughtering, collecting, conveying and sprinkling the blood, - invalidates the sacrifice.

The pesah sacrifice - and the sin-offering which were slaughtered not under their own name as taught (see mishnah 1 above), or if he collected- the blood in a holy service vessel, or conveyed it to the altar, and - or - sprinkled the blood on the altar, and performed any of these acts not under their own name- that of a pesah sacrifice or a sin-offering or if any of these acts was performed initially under their own name and subsequently not under their own name or initially not under their own name and subsequently under their own name i.e., whether he began with the correct intention and then chose the wrong one or vice versa, the pesah sacrifice and the sin-offering - are invalid.

How - are we to understand - under their own name and not under their own name?- E.g., while executing an act of the pesah sacrifice, he first did so as - having - a pesah - sacrifice in mind and then he regarded it as relating to a peace-offering; - and what is meant by - not under their own name and under their own name? - E.g., while performing an act of the pesah sacrifice he first intended it as - relating to a peace-offering and subsequently as serving - as a pesah sacrifice. In all the mentioned cases the offering is invalid

for a sacrifice is rendered invalid by four things: slaughtering, collecting - the blood from the neck of the animal in a holy service vessel, conveying the blood to the altar and sprinkling the blood upon the altar; if any of these acts were performed for a pesah sacrifice or a sin-offering in another than their own name, it invalidates the offering. And in the case of other offerings the owners have not fulfilled their obligation (see mishnah 1).

R. Shimon declares it valid when conveying - if while conveying the blood he bore in mind a different sacrifice, the offering is valid - for R. Shimon used to say: it is impossible - to offer up a sacrifice without slaughtering it, without collecting its blood, and without sprinkling it upon the altar; hence the sacrifice is rendered invalid if during any of these acts he proceeded under a different name –

but it is possible without conveying - the blood; e.g., if he slaughters beside the altar and sprinkles - and therefore an inappropriate intention during the conveying of the blood does not disqualify the sacrifice. But the Sages argue that since the conveying is invalid if performed by a non-priest, it is part of the sacrificial rite, though not indispensable; hence a wrong intention invalidates the sacrifice as do the other acts. However, slaughtering, though a non-priest may perform it, nevertheless constitutes a sacrificial act since it is indispensable (Tiferet Yisrael). Tosefot Yom Tov explains that slaughtering has a special status because sacrificing and slaughtering are mentioned expressly in the verses which teach that the pesah sacrifice and the sin-offering are invalid if offered under a different name. ·

R. Eleazar says: If one received the blood far away from the altar and he conveys it to the altar along a path where one is required to pass - and during his approach he thought of a different sacrifice, then an inappropriate intention renders the sacrifice invalid, but if he collected the blood beside the altar and took it outside where one is not required to pass, an intention does not render invalid since this conveyance was unnecessary. However, when bringing it back this is a necessary move, and hence a wrong intention renders it invalid (Zev. 15b; Bartenura). Rash (ad loc.) explains that rather than disagreeing with the First Tanna, R. Eleazar differs from his father R.Shimon. At any rate the halakhah follows the First Tanna that a faulty intention during the carrying of the blood also invalidates the sacrifice.

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 1

Any sacrifice whose blood was collected by a non-priest, an onen, a tevul yom, one lacking vestments, one lacking atonement, one who had not washed his hands and feet, one who is uncircumcised, is unclean, sitting, standing on any object, on an animal, on his fellow's feet - are invalid. One who collected with his left hand has rendered it invalid. R.Shimon declares it valid. If it was poured out on the pavement and he collected it, it is invalid. If he put it onto the ramp, not opposite the base, if he put above what is due below, or he put below what is due above, what is due inside - outside, or what is due outside - inside, it is invalid, but karet is not incurred.

Kehati

As mentioned in the Introduction to this Tractate, all the sacrificial acts - except for the slaughtering - are valid only if executed by a priest. Our mishnah lists those unfit for the sacrificial service, who, if they collected the blood (or conveyed or sprinkled it), render the sacrifice invalid.

Any sacrifice whose blood was collected - from the animal's neck and caught in a holy service vessel - by a non-priest, an onen - i.e., the mourner of a next-of-kin so called on the day of the death, who (except for a High Priest - see Hor.3:5 and our commentary ad loc.) may not perform any Temple service, and if he did, his service is invalid, - a tevul yom - a ritually unclean person who immersed himself in a mikveh but remains unclean until sunset-

one lacking vestments - a common priest who did not wear all his statutory four - or a High Priest his eight - garments while performing the Temple service. The above four are the tunic, trousers, cap and belt. The High Priest's additional four were the golden (frontal) plate, the breastplate, the efod and the robe. An excess of garments and any partition between the flesh and the tunic or trousers also render the service invalid (Rambam, Bartenura),

one lacking atonement - e.g., a zav and a leper who are required to offer up sacrifices on the day after they immersed in a mikveh. Before bringing the sacrifices they "lack atonement", and may not offer up or eat holy things - one who had not washed his hands and feet - after donning the priestly garments for the Temple service the priest must wash his hands and feet in water taken from the laver, before which he was unfit for the service - one - a priest who is uncircumcised because his brothers died as a result of the circumcision, is nevertheless not fit for the Temple service; a priest who is unclean - through contact with a reptile (creeping thing) etc. (Gemara; see also Tosefot Yom Tov and Tiferet Yisrael), or one sitting - all Temple service must be performed standing, and is invalid if performed sitting, or one -· standing on any object - or - on an animal - or - on his fellow's feet - nothing may separate the priest's feet from the Temple court pavement, as stated by the Sages: the pavement renders holy and the service vessels render holy, i.e., the Temple pavement sanctifies those who enter just as the service vessels sanctify that which enters into them, and just as nothing may separate the vessel from its bearers, so also may nothing - whether an object, an animal or a human being (his fellow's feet) - separate the priest from the Temple court pavement, - if any of those enumerated in the mishnah collected the blood from the sacrificial animal's neck in a vessel, the sacrifices are invalid - the Gemara derives all these restrictions from the relevant Torah text.

One - a priest - who collected blood with his left hand has rendered it - the sacrifice - invalid - thus (Lev. 4:25): "And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it..." which teaches, by analogy, that it must be collected and put on with the right hand, specified in the case of the leper (Lev. 14:16): "And the priest shall dip his right finger."

R. Shimon declares it valid - he connects "with his finger" in the verse "and the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering" (v. 4:25) with "and put it.." which follows it, and not with "shall take" which precedes it (in that verse). Hence, while the right hand is indispensable for the sprinkling of the blood, its collection with the left hand does not render the sacrifice invalid. But the Sages hold that "with his finger" refers to both what precedes it and what follows it; hence the collecting must also be effected with the right hand. The halakhah follows the Sages.

If it - the blood from the animal's neck was not collected in a vessel but - was poured out on the pavement and he collected it from the pavement, it - the blood - is invalid - thus (Lev.16:14): "and he shall take of the blood of the bullock" - i.e., he must collect it from the animal and not from the pavement (see Bartenura).

If he put, i.e., sprinkled it - the blood - onto the ramp - of the altar along which the priests ascended it, or he sprinkled the blood on the altar but not opposite - facing - the base, or if he put above what is due below - the altar was ten cubits high; in the middle, at the height of five cubits, there was a red line above which was sprinkled the blood of animal sin-offerings and bird burnt-offerings, and below it the other sacrifices. Our mishnah teaches that if the blood of the sacrifices due to be sprinkled below was sprinkled above the red line, or he put below what is due above - i.e., the blood of animal sin-offerings and bird burnt-offerings, or the blood of the sacrifices (see chapter 5 below) what is due inside, - which was due to be sprinkled on the inner altar, he sprinkled outside - on the outer altar in the Temple Court - or he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices what is due outside - on the outer altar, he applied inside, it - the sacrifice

is invalid, but karet is not incurred the person who eats of the meat of such an invalid sacrifice is not liable to the karet penalty. According to the Gemara, our mishnah's main lesson is that even if one applied the blood with the intention of eating the meat after the prescribed time limit, the sacrifice is not thereby rendered pigul, since the meat was not rendered fit for eating, but invalid, and one is therefore not liable to the karet penalty.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives