## Zevachim Daf 47a

###### Zevachim 47a:1
[Zevachim 47a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:1)

מִנַּיִן לַמִּתְעַסֵּק בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁחִיטָה לְשֵׁם בֶּן בָּקָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where** is it derived with regard **to one who acts unawares** in the case **of consecrated** items, i.e., if one slaughtered an offering without intending to perform the act of slaughter at all, but rather like one occupied with other matters, **that** the offering **is disqualified?** Rav Huna said to Shmuel: It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord”** (Leviticus 1:5), teaching that the mitzva is not performed properly **unless the slaughter is for the sake of a young bull,** i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter.


###### Zevachim 47a:2
[Zevachim 47a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ בְּיָדֵינוּ הִיא; לְעַכֵּב מִנַּיִן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לִרְצֹנְכֶם תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ״ – לְדַעְתְּכֶם זְבֻיחוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Shmuel **said to** Rav Huna: **We have this** as an established *halakha* already, that it is a mitzva to slaughter the offering for the sake of a bull, but **from where** is it derived that this requirement is **indispensable?** Rav Huna **said to him** that the verse states: **“With your will you shall slaughter it”** (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., **with your** full **awareness you shall slaughter** it, in the form of a purposeful action.


###### Zevachim 47a:3
[Zevachim 47a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:3)

שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה הוֹלֶכֶת אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מְפַגְּלִין. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַמַּקְרִיב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Because the intent follows only the one performing the** sacrificial **rite.** The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: I heard that** even **the owner** of an offering **can render it *piggul*** through improper intention. **Rava says: What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei? As the verse states: “Then he who sacrifices shall sacrifice** his offering to the Lord” (Numbers 15:4). The term “he who sacrifices” is a reference to the owner; since the owner is considered one who sacrifices, he too can render his offering *piggul* with an improper intention.


###### Zevachim 47a:4
[Zevachim 47a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:4)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: זֶה מְחַשֵּׁב וְזֶה עוֹבֵד – הָוְיָא מַחְשָׁבָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar all hold** that even in a case involving two people, where **this one has intention and that one performs the service, it is** the **intention** that is relevant, i.e., it is as though the one performing the service had the intention. The Gemara explains: The statement of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei,** is **that which we** just **said,** that the owner can render his offering *piggul* through improper intention despite the fact that it is the priest who performs the service.


###### Zevachim 47a:5
[Zevachim 47a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:5)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְגוֹי – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The statement of **Rabbi Eliezer** is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Ḥullin* 38b): With regard to **one who slaughters** an animal on behalf **of a gentile, his slaughter is valid** and a Jew may eat the meat of this animal. **But Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit,** as the intention of the gentile, which is presumably to use the animal for idol worship, invalidates the act of slaughter performed by the Jew.


###### Zevachim 47a:6
[Zevachim 47a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:6)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – דִּתְנַן, כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּשֵׁר לְהַצְנִיעַ, וְאֵין מַצְנִיעִין כָּמוֹהוּ; הוּכְשַׁר לָזֶה וְהִצְנִיעוֹ, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהוֹצִיאוֹ – נִתְחַיֵּיב זֶה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה שֶׁל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The statement of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar** is **as we learned** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle:** In the case of **any** item **that is not fit to be stored, and** therefore people do **not** typically **store** items **like it,** but **it was deemed fit** for storage **by this** person **and he stored it, and another** person **came and carried out** on Shabbat the item that was stored, **that** one who carried it out **is rendered liable by the thought of this** one who stored it.


###### Zevachim 47a:7
[Zevachim 47a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:7)

תַּרְוַיְיהוּ אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – הַשְׁתָּא בַּחוּץ אָמְרִינַן, בִּפְנִים מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **These two** Sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although their rulings are stated in the context of entirely different matters, **accept** as *halakha* the ruling **of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei.** The Gemara explains: **Now** that concerning matters **outside** the Temple, i.e., non-sacred slaughter and carrying on Shabbat, with regard to which the Torah makes no reference to intention, **we say** that the intention of one person is effective for the action of another, **is** it **necessary** to state that the same *halakha* applies to matters **inside** the Temple, i.e., offerings, with regard to which it is explicitly stated that intention is effective, as indicated by the verse: “With your will you shall slaughter it” (Leviticus 19:5)?


###### Zevachim 47a:8
[Zevachim 47a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:8)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֵית לְהוּ דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ – דִּלְמָא בִּפְנִים הוּא דְּאָמְרִינַן, בַּחוּץ לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, does not** necessarily **accept** as *halakha* the rulings of **these two** Sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. The Gemara explains: **Perhaps** it is only concerning **inside** the Temple **that we say** that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another, whereas concerning **outside** the Temple, **we do not say** this.


###### Zevachim 47a:9
[Zevachim 47a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:9)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – הַשְׁתָּא בְּשַׁבָּת אָמְרִינַן, בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further differentiates between the opinions of those two Sages themselves. **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar accepts** as *halakha* the ruling **of Rabbi Eliezer: Now** that **with regard to Shabbat we say** that the intention of one person is effective for the action of another, **is** it **necessary** to say that the same applies **concerning idol worship,** where the actions are somewhat similar to those performed in the Temple?


###### Zevachim 47a:10
[Zevachim 47a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:10)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – דִּלְמָא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ כְּעֵין בִּפְנִים, אֲבָל שַׁבָּת – מְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **Rabbi Eliezer does not** necessarily **accept** as *halakha* the ruling **of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: Perhaps it is** only **with regard to idol worship that you say** that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another, as idol worship is somewhat **similar to** service performed **inside** the Temple. Consequently, it is reasonable that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another in the case of idolatry, as it does for offerings. **But** with regard to **Shabbat, the Torah prohibited** only **planned,** constructive **labor,** i.e., one is liable only for an action that includes the creative intent of the doer, and here the one who took the item out did not intend to perform a labor.


###### Zevachim 47a:11
[Zevachim 47a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:11)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי**


###### Zevachim 47a:12
[Zevachim 47a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:12)

מַתְנִי׳ **אֵיזֶהוּ מְקוֹמָן** שֶׁל זְבָחִים? קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים – שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **What is the location** of the slaughtering and consumption **of offerings?** The principle is that with regard to **offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter** is **in the north** of the Temple courtyard.


###### Zevachim 47a:13
[Zevachim 47a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:13)

פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים – שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן; וְדָמָן טָעוּן הַזָּיָה עַל בֵּין הַבַּדִּים, וְעַל הַפָּרוֹכֶת, וְעַל מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב – מַתָּנָה אַחַת מֵהֶן מְעַכֶּבֶת. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם הָיָה שׁוֹפֵךְ עַל יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, וְאִם לֹא נָתַן לֹא עִכֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Specifically, with regard to **the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter** is **in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel** is **in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the staves** of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, **and upon the Curtain** separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, **and on the golden altar.** Concerning all those sprinklings, failure to perform even **one placement of their** blood **disqualifies** the offering. As to **the remainder of the blood,** which is left after those sprinklings, a priest **would pour** it **onto the western base of the external altar. But if he did not place** the remainder of the blood on the western base, it does **not disqualify** the offering.


###### Zevachim 47a:14
[Zevachim 47a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/47a:14)

פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים – שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן; וְדָמָן טָעוּן הַזָּיָה עַל הַפָּרוֹכֶת וְעַל מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, their slaughter** is **in the north** of the Temple courtyard, **and the collection of their blood in a service vessel** is **in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling upon the Curtain** separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, **and upon the golden altar,**