Comentario sobre Zevahim 4:1

בית שמאי אומרים כל הניתנין על מזבח החיצון – there are those from them that require four gifts. And there are those from them that require two [gifts] which are four [gifts]. And are [those] that require one gift as is taught in the Mishnah in the other chapter (i.e., the next chapter, Mishnayot 3-8). But now that it said that for all of them that he did not give anything other than one gift, de facto, he has expiated, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:27): “and of your other sacrifices, the blood shall be poured out [on the altar of the LORD your God],” one pouring is implied, for it is not written “all around,” that would imply two gifts which are four.

Bet Shammai says: any [blood] which is to be sprinkled on the outer altar, if [the priest] applied [it] with one sprinkling, he has made atonement, [and in the case of a hatat two applications, but Bet Hillel says: also the case of the hatat if the priest applied it with one sprinkling it atones When it comes to sacrifices offered on the outer altar, some require four sprinklings of blood, some two and some one (we will learn more about this in chapter five). Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that for most of these sacrifices if he sprinkled the blood only one time atonement has been effected. They disagree with regard to the hatat. To Bet Shammai the hatat doesn’t atone without two applications of the blood, whereas Bet Hillel holds that one application is sufficient.

ובחטאת שתי מתנות – three portions wee stated regarding the outer sin offerings in Leviticus, one with the male goat of the chieftain (Leviticus 4:22-26), and two concerning the sin offerings/purification offering of the individual (Leviticus 4:27-35), one with a female lamb (Leviticus 4:32 and following) and one with a female goat (Leviticus 4:28 and following). With two of them, it is written as (Leviticus 4:30,34), the word"קרנת [מזבח]" /”horns [of the altar] is written defectively, and one of them (Leviticus 4:7 – “The priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar/קרנות המזבח of aromatic incense,” it is written in full. But the School of Shammai has the tradition of the traditional reading of Scripture (vowels) which must guide us/אם למקרא (as opposed to that of אם למסורת/he traditional Scripture text (without vowels) is authoritative in Biblical interpretation), there are hence, six, but there are only four on the altar [itself], and the two extra were not said other than that Scripture taught them to invalidate an act by omission, but the School of Hillel holds that regarding these of the traditional reading of the vowels/אם למקרא – that implies six and the others are of the אם למסורת –which it implies, four therefore is one more than the traditional Scripture text (without vowels) and one less than from the traditional reading of Scripture, and that would make five, four for the Mitzvah and one to invalidate an act by omission, but if he gave one gift, he has made expiation.

Therefore if he made the first application in the proper manner and the second [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time, it atones. The previous section was all just an introduction. The consequence of this rule (that one application of blood is sufficient to atone, and for Bet Shammai two in the case of the hatat) is that if he made the first application of blood in a proper manner and the second with an improper intention, the sacrifice effects atonement and is valid. The second application was put on the altar after atonement had already been effected by the first application, and therefore it does not render the sacrifice invalid.

לפיכך – the sin-offering and all of the offerings, according to the School of Hillel, and according to the School of Shammai all of the other offerings outside of the sin-offering, if he placed the first in the proper manner (i.e., in silence) but the second with the intention of eating the flesh outside of its appropriate time, he has atoned, and the sacrifice is fit to be offered through the first gift, for the second does not permit the flesh, as it was permitted through the first gift. Therefore, it is not disregarded.

If he made the first application [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time and the second outside the prescribed place, it is piggul and involves [the punishment of] karet. Again, we see here that the second application does not affect the status of the sacrifice. Thus if the first application was done with the intent of eating the sacrifice after the prescribed time, the sacrifice is piggul, and the fact that while sprinkling the blood for a second time he had a different improper intention does not matter. Concerning which improper intention causes the sacrifice to be piggul and is punished by karet, see 2:4-5.

נתן את הראשונה חוץ לזמנה וכו' פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת – for the intention is not outside of its place and the second removes it from being an offering disqualified by improper intention, it was established with the first [sacrifice] when all who were permitted to it offered it up.