## Zevachim Daf 13a

###### Zevachim 13a:1
[Zevachim 13a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:1)

צַד כָּרֵת לָא פָּרֵיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**does not refute** the inference by citing a common **element of *karet*,** as the elements of *karet* in a sin offering and in a Paschal offering are not parallel.


###### Zevachim 13a:2
[Zevachim 13a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:2)

אָשָׁם נָמֵי לַיְיתֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **let it be derived** from this inference that **a guilt offering** is **also** disqualified if sacrificed not for its sake.


###### Zevachim 13a:3
[Zevachim 13a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:3)

אָשָׁם – פָּרֵיךְ: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בְּצִבּוּר כִּבְיָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: With regard to **a guilt offering,** ben Azzai **refutes** the inference as follows: **What** is notable **about the common element of** a sin offering and a Paschal offering? It is notable **in that there are communal** offerings **as well as individual** offerings of these types, as well as communal burnt offerings, whereas there is no communal guilt offering.


###### Zevachim 13a:4
[Zevachim 13a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:4)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: צַד כָּרֵת נָמֵי פָּרֵיךְ, וּבֶן עַזַּאי גְּמָרָא גְּמִיר לַהּ. וְהָא דְּקָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר – לֹא אֲמָרָהּ אֶלָּא לְחַדֵּד בָּהּ תַּלְמִידָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that actually, ben Azzai **also refutes** the entire inference, because a sin offering and a Paschal offering uniquely share **an element of *karet*. And** the reason **ben Azzai** maintains that a burnt offering sacrificed not for its sake is disqualified is that **he learned it** as **a tradition. And** as for the fact **that Rav Huna cites an *a fortiori*** inference, he does not believe it to be the true source for ben Azzai’s *halakha*; **he said it only to sharpen** the minds of **his students with it,** challenging them to refute it.


###### Zevachim 13a:5
[Zevachim 13a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַפֶּסַח וְהַחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, קִבֵּל וְהִלֵּךְ וְזָרַק שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן; אוֹ לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן – פְּסוּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** 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.**


###### Zevachim 13a:6
[Zevachim 13a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:6)

כֵּיצַד לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן? לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח וּלְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן? לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים וּלְשֵׁם פֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 13a:7
[Zevachim 13a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:7)

שֶׁהַזֶּבַח נִפְסָל בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים: בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וּבְקִבּוּל, וּבְהִילּוּךְ, וּבִזְרִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 13a:8
[Zevachim 13a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:8)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר בְּהִילּוּךְ, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּקַבָּלָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּזְרִיקָה, אֲבָל אֶפְשָׁר בְּלֹא הִילּוּךְ – שׁוֹחֵט בְּצַד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְזוֹרֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 13a:9
[Zevachim 13a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:9)

רַבִּי אֶלְיעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַמְהַלֵּךְ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְהַלֵּךְ – מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת; בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַלֵּךְ – אֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 13a:10
[Zevachim 13a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** וְקַבָּלָה מִי פָּסְלָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that a slaughtered offering is disqualified due to prohibited intent while performing four rites, including collection of the blood. The Gemara asks: **And does collection** of the blood with prohibited intent **disqualify** the offering?


###### Zevachim 13a:11
[Zevachim 13a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:11)

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְרִיבוּ״ – זוֹ קַבָּלַת הַדָּם. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר קַבָּלַת הַדָּם, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא זְרִיקָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְזָרְקוּ״ – הֲרֵי זְרִיקָה אָמוּר; הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְהִקְרִיבוּ״? זוֹ קַבָּלַת הַדָּם. ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא בְּכֹהֵן כָּשֵׁר וּבִכְלִי שָׁרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“And** the sons of Aaron, the priests, **shall present** the blood” (Leviticus 1:5); **this** is referring to **collection of the blood. Do you say** it is referring to **collection of the blood, or is it** referring to **only sprinkling** the blood? **When it states** immediately afterward: **“And sprinkle** the blood roundabout against the altar,” **sprinkling** the blood **is thereby stated.** If so, **how do I realize** the meaning of: **“And** the sons of Aaron, the priests, **shall present”? This** is referring to **collection of the blood.** And the phrase **“the sons of Aaron, the priests”** teaches **that** collection of the blood **must be** performed **by a fit priest,** i.e., one who has no blemish and who was not disqualified due to flawed lineage, **and** that he must do so while he is wearing priestly **service vestments.**


###### Zevachim 13a:12
[Zevachim 13a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִנַּיִן לְקַבָּלָה שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא אֶלָּא בְּכֹהֵן כָּשֵׁר וּבִכְלִי שָׁרֵת? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן: ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים הַמְּשֻׁחִים״; מָה לְהַלָּן – בְּכֹהֵן כָּשֵׁר וּבִכְלִי שָׁרֵת, אַף כָּאן – בְּכֹהֵן כָּשֵׁר וּבִכְלִי שָׁרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Akiva said: From where** is it derived **that collection** of the blood **may be** performed **only by a fit priest and** while he is wearing **service vestments?** The expression **“the sons of Aaron” is stated here** in the verse in Leviticus, **and it is stated there: “These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed,** whom he consecrated to minister in the priest’s office” (Numbers 3:3). **Just as there,** in the verse in Numbers, it mentions the word “priests” **with regard to fit priests,** i.e., Aaron’s sons, **and with regard to** priests who were consecrated to serve by being dressed with **service vestments** (see Exodus 29:30), **so too here,** the reference is **to a fit priest and with regard to** one who is wearing **service vestments.**


###### Zevachim 13a:13
[Zevachim 13a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: אֲקַפֵּחַ אֶת בָּנַיי, אִם לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי לְהַבְחִין הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין קַבָּלָה לִזְרִיקָה. וְאֵין לִי לְפָרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Tarfon said: I will bury my sons if I did not hear** a *halakha* from my teachers **discerning a distinction between collection** of **and sprinkling** the blood, **but I cannot explicate** the distinction, as I do not remember what it was.


###### Zevachim 13a:14
[Zevachim 13a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲנִי אֲפָרֵשׁ: קַבָּלָה – לֹא עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַחְשָׁבָה כְּמַעֲשֶׂה, זְרִיקָה – עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַחְשָׁבָה כְּמַעֲשֶׂה. קִבְּלוֹ בַּחוּץ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב כָּרֵת, זְרָקוֹ בַּחוּץ – עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. קִבְּלוּהוּ פְּסוּלִין – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, זְרָקוּהוּ פְּסוּלִין – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Akiva said: I will explicate:** With regard to **collection,** the Torah **does not render intent like action.** Collecting the blood with prohibited intent does not disqualify the offering. But with regard to **sprinkling,** the Torah **does render intent like action.** Furthermore, if one **collected** the blood **outside** the Temple, **he is not liable** to be punished with ***karet*.** But if one **sprinkled** the blood **outside** the Temple, **he is punished** with ***karet*.** Moreover, if those who are **unfit** for the Temple service **collected** the blood, **they are not liable for** that action. But if those who are **unfit** for the Temple service **sprinkled** the blood, **they are liable** to receive the penalty of death at the hand of Heaven **for that** action.


###### Zevachim 13a:15
[Zevachim 13a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:15)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: הָעֲבוֹדָה אִם הִטֵּיתָ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל! אֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי וְאֵין לִי לְפָרֵשׁ, אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ וּמַסְכִּים לַשְּׁמוּעָה! בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה אָמַר לוֹ: עֲקִיבָא, כׇּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מֵחַיָּיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Tarfon said to him** excitedly: I take an oath by **the** Temple **service** that **you have** not **deviated left or right** from what I heard from my teachers. **I** myself **heard** them **and I cannot explicate** what they taught, whereas **you teach** this *halakha* on your own **in concurrence with the *halakha*** I heard. **He said to** Rabbi Akiva, **using this language: Akiva, anyone who leaves you is like one who leaves his life.** In any event, Rabbi Akiva’s statement in the *baraita* apparently contradicts the mishna with regard to the matter of whether the collection of the blood with prohibited intent disqualifies the offering.


###### Zevachim 13a:16
[Zevachim 13a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת פִּיגּוּל, כָּאן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** It is **not difficult.** The *baraita* **here** is referring **to intent of *piggul*,** i.e., intent to consume or burn the offering after its appointed time. The mishna **there** is referring **to intent not for the sake of** the offering.


###### Zevachim 13a:17
[Zevachim 13a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:17)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״שֶׁהַזֶּבַח נִפְסָל״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״מִתְפַּגֵּל״; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna **is also precise, as it teaches that a slaughtered offering is disqualified** in this manner, **and it does not teach** that an offering **is rendered *piggul*** in this manner. Apparently, the mishna is referring to intent that merely disqualifies the offering without rendering it *piggul*, one who partakes of which is liable to receive *karet*. The Gemara concludes: **Conclude from** the mishna’s language that this interpretation is correct.


###### Zevachim 13a:18
[Zevachim 13a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:18)

וּמַחְשֶׁבֶת פִּיגּוּל לָא פָּסְלָה בְּקַבָּלָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does intent of *piggul* during** the **collection** of the blood **not disqualify** the offering?


###### Zevachim 13a:19
[Zevachim 13a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:19)

וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל לֹא תְּהֵא מַחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת אֶלָּא בִּזְרִיקָה בִּלְבָד; מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְקַבָּלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו (פִּיגּוּל הוּא) בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לֹא יֵרָצֶה״ – בִּדְבָרִים הַמְּבִיאִין לִידֵי אֲכִילָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that **intent** to consume an offering after its designated time **is effective** to render the offering *piggul* **only** when one has that intent **during sprinkling. From where** is it derived **to include slaughter and collection** of the blood in this *halakha*? **The verse states: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings is at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted,** neither shall it be imputed to the one who offers it; it shall be an abhorred thing [*piggul* ]” (Leviticus 7:18). As derived on 29a, the verse is referring to performance of the sacrificial rites with intent to consume the offering after its designated time. The phrase “is at all eaten” teaches that **the verse speaks of matters that lead to consumption,** i.e., those sacrificial rites that enable consumption of the offering, including slaughter of the animal and collecting the blood.


###### Zevachim 13a:20
[Zevachim 13a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:20)

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף שְׁפִיכַת שִׁירַיִים וְהַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought **that I** should **include even** the **pouring of** the **remainder** of the blood on the base of the altar, after its sprinkling, **and** the **burning of** the **sacrificial portions** on the altar.


###### Zevachim 13a:21
[Zevachim 13a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/13a:21)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לֹא יֵרָצֶה, הַמַּקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב״ – זְרִיקָה בַּכְּלָל הָיְתָה, וְלָמָּה יָצְתָה? לְהַקִּישׁ אֵלֶיהָ. לוֹמַר לְךָ: מָה זְרִיקָה מְיוּחֶדֶת – שֶׁהִיא עֲבוֹדָה (וּמְכַפֶּרֶת), וּמְעַכֶּבֶת כַּפָּרָה; אַף כׇּל – עֲבוֹדָה, וּמְעַכֶּבֶת כַּפָּרָה. יָצְאוּ שְׁפִיכַת שִׁירַיִים וְהַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין – שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states: “On the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to the one who offers it”** (Leviticus 7:18). The phrase “the one who offers it” indicates the sprinkling of the blood. **Sprinkling was included** in the general category of rites that enable consumption. **And for what** purpose **was it singled out? To compare** other *halakhot* **to it,** i.e., **to say to you: Just as sprinkling is unique, as it is a rite and** if not performed **it prevents atonement, so too, any rite** that **prevents atonement** if not performed is included in the *halakha* of *piggul*. **Pouring** the **remainder** of the blood **and burning** the **sacrificial portions are** therefore **excluded, as they do not prevent atonement** if not performed. Evidently, intent of *piggul* applies to the collection of the blood, contrary to Rava’s resolution of the contradiction between the mishna and the *baraita*.