Kommentar zu Zevachim 2:10

כל הזבחים שקבל דמן זר – who is not a Kohen, it is disqualified. As it is written (Leviticus 22:2): “[Instruct Aaron and his sons] to be scrupulous about the sacred donations that the Israelite people consecrate to Me, lest they profane [My holy name, Mine the LORD’s],” teaches about the foreigner (i.e., non-Kohen) who transgressed, who profaned the Holy Things.

All sacrifices whose blood was caught by a: non-priest, an onen, a tebul yom, one lacking [priestly] vestments, one lacking sacrificial atonement, one who had not washed his hands and feet, an uncircumcised [priest]; an unclean [priest]; one who was sitting, one who was standing on utensils or on an animal or on another’s feet, are disqualified.
If [the priest] caught [the blood] with his left hand, it is disqualified. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid.
If the blood was poured out on to the pavement and [the priest] collected it, it is disqualified.
If [the priest] put it [the blood] on the ramp [to the altar], [or on the altar, but] not against its base; if he applied [the blood] which should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it] or that which should be applied above, below, or that which should be applied within [he applied] without, or that which should be applied without [he applied] within, it is invalid, but does not involve karet.
Section one: This is a list of people who cannot receive the blood of a sacrifice in a vessel, or carry it to the altar, or sprinkle it on the altar. Note that the mishnah does not say that these people cannot slaughter the animal. The laws regarding slaughtering the sacrifice are less strict. I shall explain each category one at a time:
Non-priest: only priests can perform these activities.
An onen: Someone who had one of their close relatives die is considered an onen on the day of the death.
A tebul yom: This is the word for an impure person who has immersed in a mikveh but before the end of the day (before the sun sets after he was made pure). See Leviticus 22:7. Believe it or not, there is an entire tractate in Seder Toharot devoted to this subject.
One lacking [priestly] vestments: A regular priest must wear four garments and the high priest must wear eight garments (see Yoma 7:5). Without the proper attire, the sacrifice is invalid.
One lacking sacrificial atonement: In certain cases, when one’s period of impurity is over he must bring a sacrifice. If the priest has not brought the required sacrifice, he cannot take part in the sacrificial worship.
One who had not washed his hands and feet: See Exodus 30:19.
An uncircumcised [priest]: See Ezekiel 44:9.
An unclean [priest]: one must be ritually pure to offer sacrifices.
One who was sitting, one who was standing on utensils or on an animal or on another’s feet, are disqualified: the sacrificial procedure must be performed while standing on the floor of the Temple’s courtyard, not sitting or standing on something else.
Section two: According to the first opinion, the blood must be caught in one’s right hand. Rabbi Shimon says it can be caught in the left hand.
Section three: The blood has a very specific place upon which it must be poured. It cannot be poured on the floor of the Temple, or on the ramp leading up to the Temple. It must be applied to the base of the altar. Sometimes the blood must be poured on the lower part of the base, which was separated by a crimson line from the upper part, and sometimes it must be poured on the upper part. The important thing is that the blood is poured on the part appropriate to that sacrifice. If it is not, the sacrifice is invalid. Similarly, sometimes the blood must be poured on the altar inside the Sanctuary (the Hekhal) or even within the Holy of Holies, and at other times it must be poured on the outer altar. What again is essential is that the blood of each sacrificed is poured on the altar upon which it is supposed to be poured. If it is not, the sacrifice is invalid.
Although this sacrifice is invalid, one who eats of its flesh is not liable for karet (a biblical penalty of great severity) unlike one who eats of one of the sacrifices disqualified in mishnah two or three. In those cases, when the animal was sacrificed with the wrong intent, eating its flesh was punished by the serious penalty of karet.

אונן – a person who sustained a loss of one of the relatives that he is obligated to mourn over them, all the day of the death is called Onen/a mourner before the burial of a kinsman, and he is forbidden to eat Holy Things, but if he served (nevertheless) and profaned . Except for the High Priest who offers sacrifices as a mourner prior to the burial of a kinsman [one is normally obligated to mourn for].

וטבול יום – that his purification is not completed until [after] sunset, as it is written (Leviticus 22:7): “As soon as the sun sets, he shall be pure, [and afterward he may eat of the sacred donations, for they are his food].”

ומחוסר בגדים – a common priest who served with less than four [sets of] garments. And a High Priest who served with less than eight [sets of garments] and because he is lacking priestly garments (which renders the offerings he sacrifices unit, and he is punishable by death at the hands of Heaven – see Exodus 29:9 and Tractate Zevakhim 17b) is disqualified, and similarly someone wearing an excess of priestly garments is disqualified. And similarly, if there was something that interposes between the priest’s undercoat/כתונת and the undergarments/drawers, he is disqualified, for the All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 6:7): “[The priest shall dress in linen raiment,] with linen breeches next to his body,” so that there will be nothing that interposes between the clothing to his skin, but he does don/wear the phylacteries of the head because they are placed on his hair which are visible between the front plate/ציץ (worn by the High Priest across his forehead which is made of gold, extending from one ear to the other – see Exodus 28:36-38) and the priest’s turban/מצנפת.

ומחוסר כפורים (lacking atonement – who must bring a sacrifice to complete it) – as for example, the man or woman with a flux (i.e., זב וזבה ), the leper and the woman who gave birth that completed their purification but had [yet] brought their sacrifices. And we find that the All-Merciful wrote regarding a woman who gave birth (Leviticus 12:8): “The priest shall make expiation on her behalf, and she shall be pure,” it follows that until here, she is impure. And the same law applies to all of the ret of those who are impure who require a sacrifice, that they [remain] in their state of impurity until they bring their atonement as regards partaking of Holy Things and to come to the Sanctuary.

ושלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים – because it is stated regarding the sanctification of the hands and feet that it is a law for all times, and it is stated regarding the raiment of the priesthood as a law for all times, just as concerning the raiment of the priesthood, if he served lacking priestly garments (see Exodus 29:9: “And gird both Aaron and his sons with sashes. And so they shall have priesthood as their right for all time.”), it is disqualified, even if he served without washing his hands and feet, he is disqualified. And the other of sanctifying his hands and feet: He doesn’t stand nor does he sit, but he reclines, and he places his right hand on top of his right foot and his left hand on top of his left foot, and rubs his feet with his hands when he is sanctifying [himself]. But he is not permitted to sanctify [himself] in the basin (i.e., laver for the priests in the Temple court) itself, but rather from the water that comes out from it, as it is stated (Exodus 30:19): “And let Aaron and his sons wash their hands and feet [in water drawn] from it,” but not in it, and all of the waters are fit for sanctification, and even if they are not fresh waters.

וערל – if he served, he is disqualified, as it is written in Ezekiel (44:9): “Let no alien, uncircumcised in spirit and flesh, [enter My sanctuary],” an analogy of words in close proximity is made between ערל/uncircumcised and בן – נכר/alien, just as an alien if he served is disqualified, so too is the case of the uncircumcised.

יושב – as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:5): “[For the LORD your God has chosen him and his descendants, out of all of your tribes], to be in attendance/לעמוד לשרת (literally, “to stand to serve”) [in the name of the LORD for all time],” that there should not be service other than while standing.

עומד על גבי כלים – since the floor of the Temple courtyard sanctifies, and the sacred vessels sanctify the thing that comes in contact with them, jus as sacred vessels require that thee is nothing that interposes between it and sacred vessels, even the floor, there should not be a thing that interposes between it and the floor. And needless to say utensils that are not a kind of flesh/meat definitely interpose, bu even the animal which is a kind of meat/flesh, and needless to say, the animal which is not a kind of human being, but rather even the feet of his colleague which are a kind of human being interposes.

קבל בשמאלו פסל – as it is written (Leviticus 4:25): “The priest shall take with his finger some of the blood of the purification offering and put it [on the horns of the altar of burnt offering],” which teaches that he the reception of the blood nor the putting it [on the horns of the altar of burnt offering] should be other than with the right [hand], for it is derived from the [law of the] leper, as it is written concerning it (Leviticus 14:16): “And the priest shall dip his right finger [in the oil that is in the palm of his left hand and sprinkle some of he oil with his finger seven times before the LORD].”

ור"ש מכשיר – he holds that this Biblical verse is expounded in back of him and not in front of/before him, therefore, the finger of “and put it” (Leviticus 4:25) as it is written refers to in back of him, and not as “[the priest] shall take” (ibid.,) which is written in front of him. But the Rabbis hold that this Biblical verse is expounded [both] in front of him/before him and in back of him, for when it is written, “with his finger,” it refers to both, to the taking that is before him/in front of him and to the putting which is in back of him. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

נשפך על הרצפה – for the blood was not received in a vessel.

ואספו – as it is written (Leviticus 16:14): “He shall take some of the blood of the bull [and sprinkle it with his finger over the cover on the east side],” what is “from some of the blood of the bull?” If you might think , and even from part of the blood, but it is written (Leviticus 4:18): “and all the rest of he blood he shall pour out [at the base of the altar of burnt offering],” so we see that he receives all of the blood, but rather it is called, that he takes blood from the bull, from the bull he will receive it, but not from the ground. For they deduct one letter from this word and add it to another word and expound upon it.

נתנו על הכבש שלא כנגד היסוד פסול – but nevertheless the owners have been expiated/forgiven, but the meat is not eaten. For the All-Merciful stated regarding the blood (Leviticus 17:11): “and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar,” since the blood arrived to he altar, the owners were expiated/forgiven.

נתן את הנתנים למטה – from the red line/חוט הסיקרא (a line painted in red encircling the Temple altar at precisely half its height. This marking was necessary because the blood of animal sin-offerings and birds brought as burnt offerings was sprinkled on the upper portion of the altar, above the red line, whereas the blood of all other sacrifices was sprinkled on the lower portion, below the red line), which encircled the altar in the middle. And the blood which was placed in the five upper cubits which are above from the red line are called “placed above” and those that were placed in the five lower cubits which are below from the red line are called “placed below.”

הניתנים בפנים – that their bloods required sprinkling on the golden altar.

בחוץ – on the outer altar.

פסול – and they are forbidden for consumption.

ואין בו כרת – a person who eats from the meat of the Holy Things that whose blood was disqualified in these disqualified things, but he is not punished with extirpation.

השוחט את הזבח – peace-offerings or other [sacrifices] that are consumed.

Introduction This mishnah begins to deal with the subject of a priest who slaughters a sacrifice with the intent of doing a subsequent activity at the wrong time or wrong place. The wrong intention disqualifies the sacrifice, but in different ways and with different consequences.

כזית מעור האליה – but it comes to tell us that the skin of the fat tail is not like the fat tail itself, for he considers to eat something which is normally eaten, and therefore it is invalid, for if it is like the fat tail, one has in mind the undue intention in the performance of a sacrificial ceremony to eat something which is generally to be offered as incense (i.e., burned) and it is was not invalid, as is taught in the Mishnah (see Mishnah 3 of this chapter) shortly further on, to eat something which is usually eaten or to offer as incense something offered as incense (i.e., entrails) it is invalid.

One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. In all of the cases in this section, the priest sacrifices the animal with the intent of doing one of the activities outside of the Temple. I’m not sure why he would do this, but the message is clear the priest must realize that all of the following are done in the Temple. A) All of the blood that needs to be sprinkled must be sprinkled within the Temple. B) The innards that are burned on the altar must be entirely burned within the Temple. C) The flesh of certain sacrifices must be eaten within the Temple. D) If the priest has the intention of doing any of these steps outside of the Temple, the sacrifice is disqualified. However, the transgression is not punished by karet. The reason probably is that this specific problem, sacrificing it with the intent of doing something with it outside of the Temple, is not directly addressed by the Torah. As we shall see, this is contrasted with “piggul” found in the next section, which is punished by karet.

ואינו ענוש כרת – rhe person who eats it, and even outside, and he is not published with extirpation.

[One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. In all of the cases here, the priest sacrifices the animal with the intent of doing something else with it after the time in which the animal must be eaten has expired. For some animals this is one day (until the next morning) and for some it is two days (until the morning after tomorrow). We shall discuss this issue more fully in chapter five. Here we learn that if the priest does any of the activities explained above with the intent of doing them after this time has expired, the animal is considered “piggul”, a word found in Leviticus 7:18. One who eats such a sacrifice is liable for karet, even if he eats it during the time when the sacrifice must be eaten. Note that this is a category different from “notar (remnant)” which is what the sacrifice is called if it is actually left over past the time when it must be eaten. This sacrifice is not actually “notar” rather it was sacrificed with the intent of making it notar. That is sufficient for it to be biblically prohibited.

ולאכול את בשרו למחר – but one cannot establish it for peace-offerings, but rather for the thanksgiving offering and the sin-offering, for whereas regarding peace offerings, it is its appropriate time. But to cast its blood or to burn its sacrificial portions, even for a peace-offering, it would be on the morrow outside its appropriate time.

פגול וחייבים עליו כרת – the person who eats it and even, at its appropriate time, he punished with extirpation.

השוחט והמקבל והמהלך והזורק – if when he is engaged in one of these four acts of Divine service, he had in mind the undue intention in the performance of a sacrificial ceremony regarding the sacrifice to eat from it something that is usually eaten, which is the flesh, or to burn something which is usually burned, which is the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar, outside of its [natural] place, the meat is forbidden for eating, but the person who consumes it is not punished with extirpation. But if he had in mind the undue intention in the performance of the sacrificial ceremony to eat it outside of its appropriate time, the sacrifice is an offering disqualified by improper intention, and the person who eats it, even within its appropriate time frame is punished with extirpation, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): “If any of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable; it shall not count for him who offered it. It is an offensive thing, [and the person who eats of it shall bear his guilt],” the verse speaks of someone who had in mind the undue intention in the performance of the sacrificial ceremony to eat from his offering on the third day. Or, it doesn’t speak other than of someone who consumes from his sacrifice on the third day, you state, after he has been pronounced fit, he went back and became unfit, with astonishment. And furthermore, [the Biblical verse] says, “it shall not count for him” for in his intention he is disqualified, but he is not disqualified on the third day. But since it states in the Biblical verse “if any [of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being] is eaten, we expound that the written Torah is speaking of two [acts of] eating, one, the eating by a human, which is the meat, and the other, the consumption by the altar, which is the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar, and on both of them, it (i.e., the Biblical verse of Leviticus 7:18) states: “it shall not count for him who offered it. It is an offensive thing.”

This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. This is the general rule that explains the details in mishnah two. If while performing one of the four essential activities he had the intent to eat or burn part of the sacrifice outside of the place where it must be eaten or burned, the sacrifice is invalid, but one who eats it is not punished by karet. This is not the “piggul” referred to in the Torah. In contrast, if the priest has the intent of eating or burning its innards on the altar after the time in which it must be eaten or burned, the sacrifice is “piggul” and one who eats of it is liable for karet, as we explained in yesterday’s mishnah.

ובלבד שיקרב המתיר – the blood [is sprinkled or tossed] in accord with its requirement.

Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. The sprinkling of the blood onto the altar is what permits the sacrifice to be eaten. The word for “permit” in Hebrew is “mattir” so the blood is called the “mattir.” This section teaches that for the previous halakhot to hold true, the blood must have been properly sprinkled on the altar. This will be explained more fully in tomorrow’s mishnah.

כמצותו (is offered in accord with its requirement) – [as if it was kosher/fit] so that there would be no other disqualification in it. But if there was in it another disqualification of an undue intention in the performance of the sacrificial ceremony, he is released from the offering disqualified for improper intention. As will be explained further on (see Mishnah 4 of this chapter). For regarding פיגול/an undue intention in the performance of the sacrificial ceremony, it is written (see Leviticus 7:18): "לא ירצה"/”it is not acceptable,” as it is written regarding something fit/acceptable, to state to you that just as acceptability of a sacrifice that is fit/kosher, so too the acceptability of a sacrifice due to improper intention. Just as the acceptability of a sacrifice that is fit/kosher is not call acceptability of a sacrifice other than through the sprinkling/tossing of the blood, which is the end of the four permissible acts of a Divine Service, so too improper intention which is not fixed, and it always standing in a state of being suspended until he sprinkles/tosses the blood which is the end of all of that which makes the sacrifice fit for eating or for the altar.

בשתיקה – without an intention that renders it invalid.

Introduction This mishnah explains the last line of yesterday’s mishnah.

הפסח והחטאת ששחטן שלא לשמן – they are removed from being offered with improper intention. But the rest of the sacrifices (especially peace-offerings) there is not [the category] of not for its own sake to remove them from improper intention, for they are valid when not offered for their own sake.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. The case of a mattir offered in accordance with the law is a case in which one of the four activities was done with intent of eating it or burning it after it needs to be eaten or burned, and the rest of the activities were done correctly, meaning in silence. “Silence” means that the sacrifice was done without the improper intent. When one (or more of the activities were done with the intent of eating it after its designated time, and all of the other activities were done properly, then the sacrifice is piggul. The only improper element was the intent to eat it or burn its innards after its designated time.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. However, if while doing one of the activities he has the intention of eating or burning it outside its proper place and while doing another one he has the intention of eating it or burning it outside of its designated time, then the sacrifice is doubly invalid and one who eats it is not liable for karet. In other words, in order for it to be piggul it must be purely an error of improper time when improper place is mixed in, the sacrifice is still invalid, but one who eats it is not liable for karet.

If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; The pesah and hatat must be sacrificed with the intent of their being a pesah or hatat (see 1:1). If while performing one of these actions one has the intent of it being a different sacrifice (and thereby invalidates it) and then has the intent of eating or burning it after the proper time, the sacrifice does not become piggul because there was another improper intent mixed in with the intent of eating it at the wrong time.

If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; This summarizes the general rule for something to become piggul, the improper intent is only to eat or burn it at the wrong time. If there is some other improper intent, the sacrifice is not piggul.

לאכול בזית בחוץ וכזית למחר – this is the same thing that they said, but the first clause [of the Mishnah] speaks about two actions: that he slaughtered it on the condition of eating an olive’s bulk outside [its appropriate place, and he received it on account to eat an olive’s bulk on the morrow [outside of its appropriate time]. But here, [we are speaking] of one action, that he slaughtered it on the condition of eating an olive’s bulk on the morrow [not at the appropriate time] and an olive’s bulk outside [not in its appropriate place].

[If one intended] to eat as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive on the outside its intended place, [or] as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. The priest performs the sacrifice with the intention of first eating part of it on the wrong day, and then he has the intention of eating part of it outside its designated place, or vice versa. Alternatively, he has one type of improper intention with half of an olive’s worth of the sacrifice and then another type of improper intention with the other half. Note in all of these cases he has mixed between the two types of improper intention wrong time and wrong place. The sacrifice is invalid, because the two half-olives combine since they were both offered with the wrong intention. However, in none of the cases is there karet for eating the sacrifice because the penalty of karet is only for piggul, and for something to be piggul, the problematic intent must be solely that of eating it after its designated time. Having the intent of eating it in the wrong place takes it out of the category of karet.

ר' יהודה אומר– He disputes our entire Mishnah. He does not hold that the intention of other things that are forbidden remove one from an improper intention, unless it his invalid behavior preceded his improper intention. And he also disputes regarding the issue of one action, for he holds by the first language used. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. Rabbi Judah says that the order of the wrong intentions is critical. If the improper intention of time precedes the improper intention of place, then the sacrifice is piggul because the second improper intention does not affect the first improper intention. However, if the first improper intention is place and then he has an improper intention of time, the sacrifice is not piggul.

לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר כחצי זית – but both o them are outside of the proper time or outside of the proper place.

But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. The sages, whose opinion is found in section one, say that the order doesn’t matter. For something to be piggul, the improper intention must have been only that of time.

[If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine. In section one we learned that if one has one type of improper intention with one half of an olive’s worth of meat and the other type of improper intention with the other half, then the two half-olives’ worth of meat join together to prohibit the sacrifice. Here we learn that if the priest intends to eat one half of an olive’s worth at either the wrong time or place and burn another half of an olive’s worth at either the wrong time or place, the two half-olives do not join together to create a prohibition. While two types of wrong intention can join together, improper intentions to do different things, burn and eat, do not join together.

כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין – to make it invalid. For here there lacks an appropriate measure (regarding the place it was offered) and there it lacks an appropriate measure (regarding the time it was offered).