## Zevachim Daf 41b

###### Zevachim 41b:1
[Zevachim 41b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:1)

אֲבָל יוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת – דְּלָא כְּתִיבָן בְּגוּפֵיהּ, אֵימָא לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** with regard to the burning of the **diaphragm and** the **two kidneys, which are not written with regard to** the bull for an unwitting communal sin **itself,** you might **say** that this *halakha* should **not** be derived from it. Therefore, this additional derivation of “their sin offering” **teaches us** that the two offerings are similar with regard to this detail as well.


###### Zevachim 41b:2
[Zevachim 41b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְהָא תַּנָּא – פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְכׇל מַה שֶּׁאָמַר בְּעִנְיָן קָאָמַר! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַב מְרַבֵּי הָכִי, תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לָא מְרַבֵּי הָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: But the *tanna* said:** “With the bull”; this serves to include **the bull of Yom Kippur for all that is stated in this matter.** This statement indicates that all the details applying to the bull for an unwitting communal sin are extended to the bull of Yom Kippur by means of a single derivation. Rav Pappa responded: This issue **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as **the *tanna* of the school of Rav amplifies** the *halakha* through **this** juxtaposition, whereas **the *tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not amplify** the *halakha* through **this** juxtaposition, but maintains that an additional derivation is necessary with regard to the diaphragm and the two kidneys.


###### Zevachim 41b:3
[Zevachim 41b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:3)

תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶאֶמְרוּ יוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת בְּפַר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּפַר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר? מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁזָּעַם עַל אוֹהֲבוֹ, וּמִיעֵט בְּסִרְחוֹנוֹ מִפְּנֵי חִיבָּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites a statement that is related to the above *halakhot*. **The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what** reason **are** the **diaphragm and** the **two kidneys stated with regard to** the **bull** for an unwitting sin **of the anointed priest, and they are not** explicitly **stated with regard to** the **bull for an unwitting communal sin?** This can be explained by **a parable:** It can be compared **to a flesh-and-blood king who grew angry with his beloved** servant for his misdeeds, **but spoke little of** the servant’s **offense due to his** great **affection** for him. Likewise, as the Jewish people are beloved by God, the Torah does not describe their sin offering in detail.


###### Zevachim 41b:4
[Zevachim 41b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:4)

וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶאֶמְרָה ״פָּרֹכֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ בְּפַר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר בְּפַר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר? מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁסָּרְחָה עָלָיו מְדִינָה; אִם מִיעוּטָהּ סָרְחָה – פָּמַלְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ מִתְקַיֶּימֶת, אִם רוּבָּהּ סָרְחָה – אֵין פָּמַלְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ מִתְקַיֶּימֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the school of Rabbi Yishmael** further **taught: For what** reason **is it stated:** “Before **the Curtain of the Sanctuary”** (Leviticus 4:6), **with regard to the bull** for an unwitting sin **of the anointed priest, and** this **is not stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin,** where it merely states: “Before the Curtain” (Leviticus 4:17)? This can be explained by **a parable:** It can be compared **to a flesh-and-blood king against whom a province sinned. If a minority of** that province **sinned,** his relationship with **his entourage [*pamalya*] remains,** i.e., the king continues to treat his loyal followers in the usual manner. But **if the majority of** the province **sinned,** his relationship with **his entourage does not remain,** and he no longer meets even those who remained devoted to him. Similarly, when the entire people sins, God no longer has the same relationship with them, and it is as though the place where the priest sprinkles the blood is no longer sacred.


###### Zevachim 41b:5
[Zevachim 41b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:5)

לְפִיכָךְ אִם נָתַן כּוּלָּן כְּתִיקְנָן כּוּ׳. תְּנַן הָתָם: פִּיגֵּל בַּקּוֹמֶץ וְלֹא בַּלְּבוֹנָה; בַּלְּבוֹנָה וְלֹא בַּקּוֹמֶץ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that all the placements upon the inner altar are indispensable, and **therefore if** the High Priest **placed all** the placements **in their proper manner,** and one in an improper manner, i.e., with the intent to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for *karet* for one who partakes of the offering. The Gemara states that **we learned** in a mishna **there** (*Menaḥot* 16a), with regard to the burning of the handful of a meal offering and the frankincense, both of which render the meal offering permitted for eating: If the priest had an intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul*,** and this occurred **during** the burning of **the handful but not during** the burning of **the frankincense,** or **during** the burning of **the frankincense but not during** the burning of **the handful,** i.e., he burned one of them with the intention of eating the remainder of the offering beyond its designated time, **Rabbi Meir says:** The offering is ***piggul* and one** who eats it is **liable** to receive ***karet*.**


###### Zevachim 41b:6
[Zevachim 41b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:6)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say: There is no** liability for ***karet* in this** case **unless he renders** the offering ***piggul* during** the performance of **the entire permitting factor,** i.e., the burning of both the handful and the frankincense.


###### Zevachim 41b:7
[Zevachim 41b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: לָא תֵּימָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּקָסָבַר מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר; אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה בִּשְׁתִיקָה; קָסָבַר: כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה – עַל דַּעַת רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Do not say** that the **reason of Rabbi Meir,** who holds that the offering is *piggul*, is **that he holds** in general that **one renders** an offering ***piggul*** even if he intended to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time **during** the performance of only **half a permitting factor. Rather, what are we dealing with here?** We are dealing with a case **where he** initially **placed the handful** of the meal offering on the altar, to burn it, **with** the improper **intention** to eat the remainder beyond its designated time, **and** afterward he placed **the frankincense** on the altar **silently,** i.e., without any particular intent. Rabbi Meir **holds: Anyone who performs** an action **performs** it **with his initial intent.** Therefore, his action with the frankincense is considered to have been performed with the same improper intention as his action with the handful.


###### Zevachim 41b:8
[Zevachim 41b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:8)

מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: לְפִיכָךְ אִם נָתַן כּוּלָּן כְּתִיקְנָן וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא כְּתִיקְנָהּ – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. הָא אַחַת שֶׁלֹּא כְּתִיקְנָהּ וְכוּלָּן כְּתִיקְנָן – פִּיגּוּל;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where** does Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish learn that this is the case? He learns it **from** the fact **that** the mishna **teaches: Therefore, if he placed all** the placements **in their proper manner and one in an improper manner,** the offering is **disqualified, but there is no** liability for ***karet*. Consequently** it follows that if he initially placed **one** placement **in an improper manner,** with the intent to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time, **and all** the other placements **in the proper manner,** the offering is ***piggul*.**


###### Zevachim 41b:9
[Zevachim 41b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:9)

מַנִּי? אִילֵּימָא רַבָּנַן – הָא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן: אֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר! אֶלָּא רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Whose** opinion is this? **If we say** it is the opinion of **the Rabbis, don’t the Rabbis** explicitly **say** that **one cannot render** an offering ***piggul*** with an improper intention **in** the performance of only **half a permitting factor?** Here, the priest placed one placement in the proper manner. **Rather,** it must represent the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who says that if he had an improper intention with regard to the handful and not the frankincense the offering is *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 41b:10
[Zevachim 41b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:10)

וְאִי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשּׁוּם דִּמְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר הוּא – אֲפִילּוּ כִּדְקָתָנֵי נָמֵי! לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר: כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה – עַל דַּעַת רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if Rabbi Meir’s reason is that** he holds in general that **one renders** an offering ***piggul*** even **during** the performance of only **half a permitting factor, even** if the priest acted **as it taught** in the mishna, the offering should **also** be *piggul*, as he had an improper intention during half the permitting **factor.** Rather, is Rabbi Meir’s reason **not because he holds** that **anyone who performs** an action **performs** it **with** his **initial intent?** Consequently, if he placed the first placement with an improper intention, the offering is *piggul*, and if his intention during the first placement was proper, the offering is not *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 41b:11
[Zevachim 41b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן הִיא; וּמַאי כְּתִיקְנָן – כְּתִיקְנָן לְפִיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak says: Actually,** it is possible that the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who maintain that one cannot render an offering *piggul* with an improper intention during half a permitting factor. **And what** is the meaning of the term: **In their proper manner,** in the context of the mishna? It means **in their proper manner with regard to *piggul*,** i.e., he placed the blood with an intention that renders the offering *piggul*. The mishna is teaching that although he placed the first placements with an improper intention, one does not say that the last placement, which was placed without any specific intention, was performed with his initial intent.


###### Zevachim 41b:12
[Zevachim 41b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:12)

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי: לְפִיכָךְ אִם נָתַן כּוּלָּן כְּתִיקְנָן וְאַחַת שֶׁלֹּא כְּתִיקְנָן – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת; מִכְּלָל דְּתִיקְנָהּ – לְהֶכְשֵׁירָה הוּא דַּאֲתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But from** the fact **that it teaches: Therefore, if he placed all** the placements **in their proper manner and one in an improper manner,** the offering is **disqualified but there is no** liability for ***karet*,** which indicates that the offering is disqualified due to the one placement performed improperly, one can learn **by inference that** the term: **In their proper manner, comes to** indicate an intention that **renders** the offering **fit,** and not an intention that renders it *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 41b:13
[Zevachim 41b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:13)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי שֶׁלֹּא כְּתִיקְנָהּ – חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** It can still be explained that the term: In their proper manner, is referring to an intention that renders the offering *piggul*; and **what** is the meaning of: **In an improper manner?** This is referring to the intent to eat the offering **outside its** designated **area.** This intention serves to disqualify the offering, which means that it is not *piggul*, as not all its rites have been performed in the proper manner. **Rav Ashi says:** The term: In an improper manner, in the mishna, means that he placed one placement **not for the sake of** the offering being sacrificed, and in the case of a sin offering an intention of this kind disqualifies the offering; therefore, it is not *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 41b:14
[Zevachim 41b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:14)

מִכְּלָל דְּכִי לָא עָבֵיד לַהּ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – מִחַיַּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, one can learn **by inference that when** the priest **does not perform** the last placement with the intent to eat the offering **outside its** designated **area or not for the sake of** the offering, but silently, **he becomes liable,** as the offering is *piggul*. This is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as they maintain that one cannot render an offering *piggul* with an improper intention during half a permitting factor.


###### Zevachim 41b:15
[Zevachim 41b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:15)

אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The wording of the mishna is imprecise, as in fact, even if he placed the last placement silently the offering is not *piggul*. But **since** the *tanna* of the mishna **taught** in **the first clause,** with regard to an offering whose blood is placed on the external altar: If he placed the first placement with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time and the second placement with the intent to eat it outside its designated area, the offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** its consumption, **he likewise taught the latter clause,** with regard to a sin offering whose blood is placed on the inner altar, in a similar manner, that if he placed the last placement with the intent to eat it outside its designated area or not for the sake of the offering, the offering is **disqualified, but there is no** liability for ***karet* for** its consumption. One cannot infer from here that if he placed the last placement without intent the offering is *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 41b:16
[Zevachim 41b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41b:16)

מֵיתִיבִי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּדָמִים הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from a *baraita*: **In what** case **is this statement,** that the offering is rendered *piggul* even when he intends to eat it beyond its designated time only in the first placement, **said? In** the case of **blood that is placed on the external altar,** where one placement renders the offering permitted.