Mishnah.org Logo
Perek 1

Mishnayos Zevachim Perek 1 Mishnah 4

זבחים פרק א׳ משנה ד׳

4
With regard to the Paschal offering and the sin offering, where one slaughtered them not for their sake, or where he collected their blood in a vessel, conveyed this blood to the altar, or sprinkled this blood on the altar not for their sake, or where he performed one of these sacrificial rites for their sake and not for their sake, or not for their sake and for their sake, in all these cases the offerings are unfit. How are these rites performed for their sake and not for their sake? In a case where one slaughtered the Paschal offering for the sake of a Paschal offering and for the sake of a peace offering. How are these rites performed not for their sake and for their sake? In a case where one slaughtered the Paschal offering for the sake of a peace offering and for the sake of a Paschal offering. The offering is unfit because a slaughtered offering is disqualified due to prohibited intent in four matters: In the performance of the sacrificial rites of slaughtering the animal, in collecting the blood, in conveying the blood, and in sprinkling the blood. Rabbi Shimon deems the offering fit if the prohibited intent was during the rite of conveying the blood, as he would say: It is impossible to sacrifice an offering without slaughtering the animal, or without collection of the blood, or without sprinkling the blood, but it is possible to sacrifice an offering without conveying the blood to the altar. How so? If one slaughters the animal alongside the altar and sprinkles the blood, the blood does not need to be conveyed. Therefore, the rite of conveying the blood is not significant enough to cause the offering to be disqualified due to prohibited intent while performing it. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to one who conveys the blood in a situation where he is required to convey it, prohibited intent while conveying it disqualifies the offering. If he conveys the blood in a situation where he is not required to convey it, prohibited intent while conveying it does not disqualify the offering.
הַפֶּסַח וְהַחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, קִבֵּל, וְהִלֵּךְ, וְזָרַק, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן, פְּסוּלִים. כֵּיצַד לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח וּלְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן, לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים וּלְשֵׁם הַפֶּסַח. שֶׁהַזֶּבַח נִפְסָל בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים, בַּשְּׁחִיטָה וּבַקִּבּוּל וּבַהִלּוּךְ וּבַזְּרִיקָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר בְּהִלּוּךְ, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁחִיטָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בְקַבָּלָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בִזְרִיקָה, אֲבָל אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא בְהִלּוּךְ, שׁוֹחֵט בְּצַד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְזוֹרֵק. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַמְהַלֵּךְ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְהַלֵּךְ, הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת. וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַלֵּךְ, אֵין הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסָלֶת:
ד׳

קבל והלך וזרק – either or is taught. When he slaughtered it not for their own sake, or received he blood in a bowl out of which the sprinkling is done, or he brought the blood to the [golden] altar, or sprinkled/cast it. Each of these four [acts] of Divine service that he did not for their sake, with regard to the Passover offering or with the sin-offering, he has invalidated. But with the rest of the offerings, they did not count for the owners for the sake of their obligation, even if he did one of these four [acts] of Divine service for their own skae and not for their own sake together, whether he advanced the thought for their own sake to the thought not for their own sake, whether that he advanced the thought not for their own sake to the thought for their own sake, in every matter, it is invalid.

אבל אפשר שלא בהלוך – therefore, it is not considered to become ineligible. But the Sages state, that evefn though it is possible without conveying [the blood], one’s thought invalidates it. For Divine service which is possible to nullify is called Divine service, and conveying the blood is Divine Service, which is invalid with a foreigner (i.e., a non-Kohen), as it is written (Leviticus 1:5: “[The bull] shall be slaughtered [before the LORD;] and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall offer [the blood against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting],” from reception and onwards is the command of the priesthood.

המהלך במקום שהוא צריך להוליך – this conveying, thought invalids it. How so? They received it [the blood] outside there from the altar and brought it inside, that they came close to the side of the altar. This is the conveying that needs to be done, and the thought/intention invalidates it. If they received it inside near the altar and brought it outside, that is a conveying that is unnecessary and thought/intention does not invalidate it. If he then went back and brought it inside, this is the conveying that is needed. But the Halakha is not according to either Rabbi Eleazar nor according to Rabbi Shimon.

קבל והלך וזרק. או או קתני. ששחטו שלא לשמן, או קבל הדם במזרק, או הוליך הדם למזבח, או זרק. כל אחת מארבע עבודות הללו שעשה שלא לשמן, בפסח ובחטאת, פסל. ובשאר זבחים, לא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה. ואפילו עשה אחת מארבע עבודות הללו לשמן ושלא לשמן יחד, בין שהקדים מחשבת לשמן למחשבת שלא לשמן בין שהקדים מחשבת שלא לשמן למחשבת לשמן, בכל ענין פסול:

אבל אפשר שלא בהלוך. הלכך לא חשיבא למפסל. וחכמים אומרים, אף על גב דאפשר שלא בהלוך, מחשבה פוסלת בה. דעבודה שאפשר לבטלה שמה עבודה, והולכת הדם עבודה היא, שהרי פסולה בזר, דכתיב ושחט והקריבו בני אהרן הכהנים, מקבלה ואילך מצות כהונה:

המהלך במקום שהוא צריך להלך. הולכה זו, מחשבה פוסלת בה. כיצד, קבלו בחוץ להלן מן המזבח והכניסו בפנים, שקירבו לצד המזבח, זהו הלוך שצריך להלך, ומחשבה פוסלת בו. קבלו בפנים סמוך למזבח והוציאו לחוץ, זהו הלוך שאינו צריך, ואין מחשבה פוסלת בו. חזר והכניסו, זהו הלוך הצריך. ואין הלכה כר׳ אלעזר ולא כר׳ שמעון: