## Zevachim Daf 42a

###### Zevachim 42a:1
[Zevachim 42a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42a:1)

אֲבָל דָּמִים הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי – כְּגוֹן אַרְבָּעִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, וְאַחַד עָשָׂר שֶׁל פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וְאַחַד עָשָׂר שֶׁל פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִיבּוּר; פִּיגֵּל בֵּין בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבֵין בַּשְּׁנִיָּה וּבֵין בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת; וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** with regard to the **blood placed** inside, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, on the Curtain, and **on the inner altar, e.g.,** the **forty-three** presentations of the blood **of** the bull and goat of **Yom Kippur, and the eleven** presentations of the blood **of** the **bull for** an unwitting sin of the **anointed priest, and** the **eleven** presentations of the blood **of** the **bull for an unwitting communal sin,** if in those cases the priest had an intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul*, whether during the first** set of presentations, **whether during the second** set, **or whether during the third** set, i.e., in any of the requisite sets of presentations, **Rabbi Meir says:** The offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for its** consumption. **And the Rabbis say: There is no** liability for ***karet* unless he** had an intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul* during** the performance of **the entire permitting factor.**


###### Zevachim 42a:2
[Zevachim 42a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42a:2)

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא פִּיגֵּל בֵּין בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה בֵּין בַּשְּׁנִיָּה בֵּין בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית – וּפְלִיג!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any event,** this *baraita* **teaches:** If the priest had an intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul*, whether during the first** set of presentations, **whether during the second** set, or **whether during the third** set, **and** yet Rabbi Meir **disputes** the ruling of the Rabbis and says that the offering is *piggul*. If the priest’s intent renders the offering *piggul* whether it was during the first, second, or third set of presentations, evidently Rabbi Meir’s ruling must be based on the consideration that one can render an offering *piggul* during half a permitting factor. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s claim that Rabbi Meir’s reason is that anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent, the offering should be *piggul* only if the first set of presentations was performed with an improper intention while the rest were performed silently.


###### Zevachim 42a:3
[Zevachim 42a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42a:3)

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אָבִין: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁפִּיגֵּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה, דְּחַד מַתִּיר הוּא. אִי הָכִי, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yitzḥak bar Avin says: What are we dealing with here?** We are not dealing with a case of a priest who had improper intention in the presentations themselves, where the issue of half a permitting factor is relevent. Rather, we are dealing with a case **where** he had an improper intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul* during** the act of **slaughter.** In other words, after presenting the blood of the bull inside the Sanctuary, the rest of the blood spilled, and he had to slaughter another bull so that he could continue with the presentations, this time on the Curtain. The reason for Rabbi Meir’s ruling is **that** the act of slaughter **is one permitting factor,** and therefore the priest’s improper intent involved an entire service, not half a permitting factor. The Gemara asks: **If so, what is the reason for** the ruling of **the Rabbis?**


###### Zevachim 42a:4
[Zevachim 42a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42a:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן חֲכָמִים – רַבִּי אֶלְיעָזָר הִיא. דִּתְנַן: הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים; שֶׁהִקְרִיב מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. וְרַבִּי אֶלְיעָזָר פּוֹטֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת כּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Who are** these **Rabbis?** This **is** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned** in a mishna (109b): With regard to **the handful** of a meal offering, **and the frankincense, and the incense, and the meal offering of priests, and the meal offering of** the **anointed priest, and the meal offering** brought with the **libations** that accompany animal offerings, in a case **where one sacrificed** even **an olive-bulk from** any **one of these,** which should be sacrificed on the altar, **outside** the Temple, he is **liable,** as the burning of an olive-bulk is considered a proper burning. **And Rabbi Eliezer deems** him **exempt unless he sacrifices the whole of** any one of these items outside the Temple. This indicates that according to Rabbi Eliezer even when one performs a proper action he is not liable unless he completes the service. The same should apply to the slaughter of different bulls for different sets of presentations; one should be liable only if he rendered each of them *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 42a:5
[Zevachim 42a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42a:5)

וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֶלְיעָזָר בְּדָמִים; דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֶלְיעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק – מִשָּׁם הוּא מַתְחִיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can you explain Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion with regard to the presentation of the blood in this manner? **But doesn’t Rava say: And Rabbi Eliezer concedes with regard to blood** that even one who sacrifices part of the blood outside the Temple is liable? **As we learned** in a mishna (*Yoma* 60a) that **Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say:** If the blood of the bull or goat of Yom Kippur spilled, even if this occurred in the middle of one of the sets of sprinklings, and the High Priest slaughtered another animal, nevertheless, **from the place that he interrupted** that particular rite, when the blood spilled, **there he resumes** performance of that rite. In Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, each individual sprinkling in each of these rites is an act in and of itself, and therefore the offering can be rendered *piggul* through any one of them. This is certainly not the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir in the *baraita*.


###### Zevachim 42a:6
[Zevachim 42a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42a:6)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁפִּיגֵּל בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, וְשָׁתַק בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וְחָזַר וּפִיגֵּל בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava says:** Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish would explain that the *baraita* does not mean that the priest had an improper intention either during the first set of sprinklings or the second or the third. Instead, this is referring to a case **where** the High Priest had an improper intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul* during the first** set of sprinklings, in the Holy of Holies, **and was silent during the second** set of sprinklings, on the Curtain, **and again** had an improper intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul* during the third** set of sprinklings, on the inner altar. There is a certain novelty in this case according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent.


###### Zevachim 42a:7
[Zevachim 42a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42a:7)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ עַל דַּעַת רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא מִיהְדָּר – פִּיגּוּלֵי בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית לְמָה לִי? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מִידֵּי ״שָׁתַק״ קָתָנֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava elaborates: **Lest you say** that **if** it **enters your mind** that when the priest performs the second set of sprinklings **he** does so **with** his **initial intent,** i.e., that which he had at the time of the first set of sprinklings, **why do I** need him once **again** to have an improper intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul* during the third** set of sprinklings? Doesn’t his explicit intent during the third set of sprinklings indicate that he did not have this intent during the second set of sprinklings? Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that this is not so, but rather his silence during the second set is considered a continuation of his initial intent. **Rav Ashi objects to this: Is** it **taught** that he was **silent** during the second set of sprinklings? According to Rava’s interpretation this is the key detail of the case, and yet it is not mentioned in the *baraita*.


###### Zevachim 42a:8
[Zevachim 42a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/42a:8)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁפִּיגֵּל בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשְּׁנִיָּה וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁית; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה – מִהְדָּר פִּיגּוּלֵי בְּכֹל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא לְמָה לִי? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said: What are we dealing with here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the High Priest had an intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul* during the first** set of sprinklings, in the Holy of Holies, **and during the second** set, on the Curtain, **and during the third,** on the corners of the inner altar. But during the fourth set, the sprinklings on the top of the inner altar, he was silent. **Lest you say** that **if** it **enters your mind** to say that **anyone who performs** an action **performs** it **with** his **initial intent, why do I** need him once **again** to have an improper intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul* during each and every** set of sprinklings? Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that even so he is considered to have performed all the sprinklings with his initial intent.