Mishnayos Zevachim Perek 4 Mishnah 1
Change text layout:
זבחים פרק ד׳ משנה א׳
Beit Shammai say: With regard to all the offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar, even those that require that the blood be sprinkled on two opposite corners of the altar so that it will run down each of its four sides, in a case where the priest placed the blood on the altar with only one placement, he facilitated atonement. And in the case of a sin offering, which requires four placements, one on each of the four corners of the altar, at least two placements are necessary to facilitate atonement. And Beit Hillel say: Even with regard to a sin offering, in a case where the priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement after the fact. Therefore, since the priest facilitates atonement with one placement in all cases other than a sin offering according to Beit Shammai, and even in the case of a sin offering according to Beit Hillel, if he placed the first placement in its proper manner, and the second with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, he facilitated atonement. Since the second placement is not indispensable with regard to achieving atonement, improper intent while performing that rite does not invalidate the offering. And based on the same reasoning, if he placed the first placement with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time and he placed the second placement with the intent to eat the offering outside its designated area, the second of which does not render an offering piggul, the offering is piggul, an offering disqualified by improper intention, and one is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet] for its consumption. This is because the intent that accompanied the second placement does not supersede the piggul status of the offering.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כָּל הַנִּתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, שֶׁאִם נְתָנָן מַתָּנָה אַחַת, כִּפֵּר. וּבְחַטָּאת, שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אַף חַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה אַחַת, כִּפֵּר. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם נָתַן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְתִקְנָהּ וְאֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ, כִּפֵּר. נָתַן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ וְאֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, פִּגּוּל, וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת:
Bartenura
בית שמאי אומרים כל הנתנין על מזבח החיצון. יש מהן שטעונין ארבע מתנות. ויש מהן שטעונין שתים שהם ארבע. ויש שטעונים מתנה אחת, כדתנן באידך פרקין. והשתא קאמר דכולן שלא נתן אלא מתנה אחת בדיעבד כפר, דכתיב (דברים י״ב:כ״ז) ודם זבחיך ישפך, שפיכה אחת משמע, מדלא כתיב סביב דמשמע שתי מתנות שהן ארבע:
ובחטאת שתי מתנות. שלש פרשיות נאמרו בחטאות החיצונות בויקרא, אחת בשעיר נשיא, ושתים בחטאות יחיד, אחת בכבשה ואחת בשעירה. בשתים כתיב על קרנת חסר, והאחת מלא. ובית שמאי יש להן יש אם למקרא, הרי כאן ששה, ואין במזבח אלא ארבע, והשתים יתירות לא נאמרו אלא ששנאן הכתוב לעכב. ובית הלל סברי אהני מקרא דמשמע שש, ואהני מסורת דמשמע, ארבע הילכך טפי חדא אמסורת ובצר חדא ממקרא והוו להו חמש, ארבע למצוה וחד לעכב, ואם נתן מתנה אחת כפר:
לפיכך. חטאת וכל הזבחים לבית הלל, ולבית שמאי שאר הזבחים חוץ מחטאת, נתן את הראשונה כתקנה ואת השניה במחשבת אכילת בשר חוץ לזמנה, כיפר, וכשר הקרבן ליקרב ע״י מתנה ראשונה, דאין השניה מתרת הבשר, שהרי הותר ע״י מתנה ראשונה, הלכך אינה מפגלת:
נתן את הראשונה חוץ לזמנה כו׳ פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת. שאין מחשבת חוץ למקומו דשניה מוציאתו מידי פגול, שהרי הוקבע בראשונה שקרבו כל מתיריו:
בית שמאי אומרים כל הניתנין על מזבח החיצון – there are those from them that require four gifts. And there are those from them that require two [gifts] which are four [gifts]. And are [those] that require one gift as is taught in the Mishnah in the other chapter (i.e., the next chapter, Mishnayot 3-8). But now that it said that for all of them that he did not give anything other than one gift, de facto, he has expiated, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:27): “and of your other sacrifices, the blood shall be poured out [on the altar of the LORD your God],” one pouring is implied, for it is not written “all around,” that would imply two gifts which are four.
ובחטאת שתי מתנות – three portions wee stated regarding the outer sin offerings in Leviticus, one with the male goat of the chieftain (Leviticus 4:22-26), and two concerning the sin offerings/purification offering of the individual (Leviticus 4:27-35), one with a female lamb (Leviticus 4:32 and following) and one with a female goat (Leviticus 4:28 and following). With two of them, it is written as (Leviticus 4:30,34), the word"קרנת [מזבח]" /”horns [of the altar] is written defectively, and one of them (Leviticus 4:7 – “The priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar/קרנות המזבח of aromatic incense,” it is written in full. But the School of Shammai has the tradition of the traditional reading of Scripture (vowels) which must guide us/אם למקרא (as opposed to that of אם למסורת/he traditional Scripture text (without vowels) is authoritative in Biblical interpretation), there are hence, six, but there are only four on the altar [itself], and the two extra were not said other than that Scripture taught them to invalidate an act by omission, but the School of Hillel holds that regarding these of the traditional reading of the vowels/אם למקרא – that implies six and the others are of the אם למסורת –which it implies, four therefore is one more than the traditional Scripture text (without vowels) and one less than from the traditional reading of Scripture, and that would make five, four for the Mitzvah and one to invalidate an act by omission, but if he gave one gift, he has made expiation.
לפיכך – the sin-offering and all of the offerings, according to the School of Hillel, and according to the School of Shammai all of the other offerings outside of the sin-offering, if he placed the first in the proper manner (i.e., in silence) but the second with the intention of eating the flesh outside of its appropriate time, he has atoned, and the sacrifice is fit to be offered through the first gift, for the second does not permit the flesh, as it was permitted through the first gift. Therefore, it is not disregarded.
נתן את הראשונה חוץ לזמנה וכו' פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת – for the intention is not outside of its place and the second removes it from being an offering disqualified by improper intention, it was established with the first [sacrifice] when all who were permitted to it offered it up.