Komentarz do Zewachim 4:7

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.

אם חסר אחת מכל המתנות לא כפר – for regarding the bull for the whole community of Israel [that had erred] that the mater escapes the notice of the congregation it is written (Leviticus 4:20): “He shall do with this bull just as is done with the [priest’s] bull of purification offering; he shall do the same with it,” and this is a verse that is not necessary, for all of his Divine Services are explained in it, but rather it comes to multiply the warning of the sprinklings that are in it. And it means this, and he did for him as I have written for you his Divine Services, and he repeated them to invalidate by an act of omission for if he left out of one of the gifts he did not atone.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss the effect of improper intentions had when sprinkling the blood.

לפיכך (אם נתנן כולן כתקנן) – for since all of them permit, this one does not permit without that one, and this one does not invalidate without that one.

With regard to any [blood] which is sprinkled on the inner altar, if [the priest] omitted one of the applications, he has not atoned; therefore if he applied all in the proper manner but one in an improper manner, it [the sacrifice] is invalid, but does not involve karet. When it comes to sacrifices whose blood must be spilled on the altar inside the sanctuary (the golden altar), all of the sprinklings must be applied and if any one is skipped atonement is not effected. This differs from those sacrifices whose blood is spilled on the outer altar (see yesterday’s mishnah). Since all of the applications of the blood are mandatory, if any one of them is done with the wrong intention, the sacrifice is invalid. However, the sacrifice is not piggul and one who eats it is not obligated for karet unless all of the applications were done with the improper intent. If any one of the mandatory applications was done with the correct intent, the sacrifice is not piggul, although it cannot be eaten.

ואחת שלא כתקנה – with an intention outside of its [appropriate] time.

פסול – for it was not permitted with the first [sprinklings].

ואין בו כרת – for we don’t have an improper intention that disqualifies with a half that permits.

אלו דברים שאין חייבים עליהם – [not liable on them] for extirpation when consuming them because of offerings disqualified by improper intentions.

Introduction As we have learned, piggul is something that was sacrificed with the intent of eating or burning it outside of its appropriate time. In today’s mishnah we learn that certain items are not liable for piggul, meaning that if one eats or burns these items he cannot be liable for having eaten piggul (although they may nevertheless be prohibited for other reasons). The general rule concerning when one is liable for piggul and when one is exempt is found at the end of the mishnah. Piggul is only applicable to an item if something else permits that item to be eaten or burned. For instance, the flesh of a sacrifice can be eaten once its blood has been sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, if one eats the flesh after the sacrifice was offered with improper intent, he has transgressed the violation of piggul. Some items “permit themselves” and to these items, piggul does not apply.

הקומץ (Kohen taking a fistful of the meal-offering to be placed on the altar) -if he took a fistful on the condition to eat its remnants the next day (see Tractate Menahot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1), and the meal-offering became rejectable that it is not consumed other than during [that] day and the night [following], the person who eats the fistful [of meal-offering] is not [liable] for extirpation, for the inappropriate intention does not occur other than upon a thing that has (a sacrificial object) which requires another act to make it permissible, for we derive offerings disqualified by inappropriate intention from peace-offering as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): “If any of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being (i.e., peace-offering) [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/פגול יהיה, and the person who eats it shall bear his guilt].” Just as peace-offerings/sacrifices of well-being are particular in that they require an act to make it permissible whether for man or for the altar, for the blood permits those portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar, and the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar permit the meat to man, and they are liable upon them because of an offering disqualified due to inappropriate intention, excluding all of those that are counted in our Mishnah, which do not have any action that makes it permissible for them than they themselves which permit for others, the person who eats from them is not liable because an offering made with an inappropriate intention.

These are the things for which one is not liable on account of piggul:
The fistful, The “fistful” is the fistful of flour that the priest puts on the altar from the minhah, or meal-offering. If he grabs this fistful with the intent of eating it outside the proper time, or of burning it outside of its time, the minhah offering is piggul. However, one who eats the fistful taken from the minhah offering has not transgressed piggul for the fistful permits the minhah to be eaten, but the fistful permits itself, and one who eats something that permits itself has not violated piggul.

והלבונה (frankincense) – there is nothing else that makes it permissible, but rather it permits the meal-offering, like the fistful of meal-offering.

The incense, The incense that is put on the altar with the “fistful” (see Leviticus 2:2). The same rules that apply to the fistful apply to it as well.

מנחת נדבת כהנים (free-will meal-offering of the priests) – all of which is burnt entirely (see Leviticus 6:16: “So, too, every grain offering offering of a priest shall be a whole offering: it shall not be eaten.”) and is not grabbed from. Therefore, there is nothing else that permits it.

The frankincense, The frankincense offering referred to in Exodus 30:7-8. The case here is one in which a person, while bringing the frankincense to the altar to turn it into smoke thought that he would burn it on the next day. One who then eats such frankincense, has not transgressed piggul.

מנחת כהן משיח – that is the cakes of the High Priest which is offered each day, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening (see Leviticus 6:13: “This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer on the occasion of his anointment: a tenth of ephah of choice flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.”).

The priests’ meal-offering, The priests’ entire minhnah offering is burned on the altar (Leviticus 6:16). There is no fistful taken from it that permits it to be eaten or burned. Therefore, it “permits itself” and the laws of piggul do not apply.

ומנחת נכסים – we do not have the tradition because they (Rabbi Meir and the Sages further on in our Mishnah) dispute this. And there is a division between it coming with the sacrifice to it coming on its own.

The anointed priest's meal-offering, The high priest would bring a minhah offering everyday (Leviticus 6:15). It too is entirely burned.

והדם – which permits it.

The minhah with libation This refers to a minhah offering that a person volunteers to bring (Numbers 15:2ff).

והנסכים הבאים בפני עצמן – as for example, when he made a free-will meal offering [accompanying] the drink-offering/libation without a sacrifice, as we state in Menahot (see Menahot 15b), a person makes a freewill donation of a meal offering [accompanying a drink-offering/libation on its own. Alternatively, he brought it for the sacrifice, but that he brought his sacrifice today and his libations on the morrow, for the Master stated (Numbers 29:37): “the grain offerings and libations [for the bull, the ram, and the lambs, in he quantities prescribed],” even on the morrow, but if he brought them with his sacrifice and he was disqualified by an improper intention with the sacrifice, the libations were also disqualified by improper intention.

The blood, The blood permits the sacrifice to be eaten, but nothing permits it. One who eats this blood is liable for eating blood, but not for the violation of piggul.

וחכמים אומרים אף הבאים עם הבהמה – for since he can offer up the libations on the morrow, it is found that hat he sacrifice [itself] permits them, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

The libations that are brought separately, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: also those that are brought with an animal [sacrifice]. This refers to a minhah brought with a libation but not with an accompanying animal sacrifice, for the sacrifice was offered on the previous day. According to Rabbi Meir, this minhah permits itself and does not permit the sacrifice (the blood permits the sacrifice). Therefore, in such a case, the minhah is not piggul, even if the animal was. However, according to Rabbi Meir, if the minhah was brought with the animal sacrifice, and the animal becomes piggul (offered with improper intent), then the minhah also becomes piggul. The other rabbis disagree and hold that the minhah offering cannot become piggul even when it accompanies an animal sacrifice. The minhah offering is independent from the animal offering and even if the animal becomes piggul, the minhah does not.

לוג שמן של מצורע – its remnants are consumed.

The log of oil brought by the metzora: Rabbi Shimon says: one is not liable on account of piggul; But Rabbi Meir says: one is liable on account of piggul, See Leviticus 14:10. This log (a measure) of oil is offered by the metzora (one who had some type of skin disease) upon becoming pure. It accompanies an asham sacrifice. According to Rabbi Shimon, if the asham becomes piggul, the oil does not because the sacrifice does not “permit” the oil, rather the oil permits itself. Rabbi Meir holds that the asham does permit the oil to be put on the ear and thumb/big toe of the metzora and therefore it is something that other things permit and it can become piggul. If the sacrifice is offered with the wrong intent, then the oil becomes piggul and one who eats it would be liable.

אין חייבין עליו משום פגול – if his guilt offering was disqualified due to an improper intention, the LOG was not disqualified due to an improper intention. But even though that the LOG is dependent upon the guilt-offering, as it is written (Leviticus 14:17): “[Some of the oil left in his palm shall be put by the priest on the ridge of the right ear of he one being purified, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot -] over the blood of the reparation/guilt-offering,” for if he did not place from the blood of the reparation offering first, the placement of the oil is not worth anything, nevertheless since a person brings his reparation offering now and his LOG (of oil) within ten days, it is found that the reparation offering does not permit it, and since it has nothing that permits it, they are not liable for inappropriate intention.

because the blood of the asham makes it permitted and whatever has something else that makes it permitted, whether for man or for the altar, one is liable on its account for piggul. This is the general rule that underlies the entire mishnah.

ור"מ אומר – the LOG [of oil) that comes with the sacrifice on that day, one is liable for it because of an inappropriate intention if he had an inappropriate intention with the reparation offering. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

בין לאדם בין למזבח – whether this or that.

העולה דמה מתיר את בשרה למזבח – as it is written (Leviticus 1:6): “dashing the blood [against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting],” and afterwards (Leviticus 1:8): “[And Aaron’s sons, the priests] shall lay out the sections.”

Introduction This mishnah discusses what permits the parts of various sacrifices to be burned or eaten. The importance of this is that if one has an improper intent while performing an action with the blood that permits this sacrifice to be eaten or burned, then the sacrifice is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet (if the improper intent was to eat or burn it after the time in which it must be eaten or burned).

ואת עורה לכהנים – as it is written (Leviticus 7:8): “[So, too, the priest who offers a man’s burnt offering shall keep] the skin of the burnt offering that he offered,” it is not other than after the tossing/sprinkling [of the blood].

[The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. Once the blood of the olah sacrifice has been sprinkled on the altar, its flesh can be burned on the altar and the skin goes to the priests. Thus, if one has an improper intent while sprinkling the blood, the olah is piggul.

חטאת העוף – which is eaten by the Kohanim. We derive it from what is written (Leviticus 16:16): “whatever their sins,” to conclude the sin-offering of fowl so that you would not say that it died on its own.

[The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah of a bird permits its flesh to the altar. The same holds true for the bird olah, except that in this case the skin is also burned (what would the priests do with the skin of a dove?).

פרים הנשרפים – the bull of the anointed priest and the bull for an unwitting communal sin [as a result of an errant Halakhic decision handed down by the Great Sanhedrin] (Talmud Tractate Horayot 2a and Chapter 1, Mishnah 5) and the bull of Yom Kippur.

[The sprinkling of] the blood of the hatat of a bird permits its flesh to the priests. A hatat bird can be eaten by the priests, once its blood has been sprinkled.

ושעירים הנשרפים – the goat of Yom Kippur and the goats of the idolaters. All of these require the blood being sprinkled inside, and their portions of the offerings consumed upon the altar offered on the altar of the burnt-offering and the rest of the meat is burned in the place of the ashes [outside of Jerusalem where the ashes from the altar were deposited; the Yom Kippur goat and other public sin-offerings that were not eaten were burned there], But since their blood permits their portions of the offerings consumed upon the altar to be offered up, if he had an inappropriate intention with them, and ate the portions of the offerings that were to be consumed upon the altar, he is liable for them because it was an offering disqualified by improper intention.

[The sprinkling of] the blood of the bullocks that are burned and the goats that are burned permits their innards to be offered [on the altar]. Rabbi Shimon said: whatever is not [sprinkled] on the outer altar, as in the case of shelamim, one is not liable for it on account of piggul. There are three types of bullocks referred to here: 1) The bullock offered on Yom Kippur; 2) the bullock offered by a high priest for issuing a mistaken instruction; 3) the bullock offered by the court that makes a mistaken instruction. There are two types of goats that are referred to here: 1) The goat offered on Yom Kippur; 2) The goat offered by a court for making a mistaken instruction concerning a law related to idol worship. In all of these cases the blood is sprinkled on the inner altar, their flesh is burned and their innards are burned on the altar. Therefore, if one has an improper intent while sprinkling the blood, the flesh is piggul. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that in these cases, since the blood is not sprinkled on the outer altar, as is the case in shelamim concerning which the laws concerning piggul were written (Leviticus 7:18), the laws of piggul don’t apply. So in this case, even if he has an improper thought, the flesh is not piggul.

כל שאינו על מזבח החיצון כשלמים – an offering disqualified by improper intention, with regard to peace-offerings it is written. Just as peace-offerings are unique in that the blood is given on the outer altar, so also anything where their blood is given on the outer altar, to exclude the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned where their blood requires sprinkling/tossing and the giving of their blood inside. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

קדשי נכרים – that the heathens make vows of votive offerings and free-will offerings like an Israelites as it is written in the [Torah] portion of Emor (Leviticus 22:18): “When any man of the house of Israel [or of the strangers in Israel] presents a burnt-offering as his offering for any of the votive or any of the freewill offerings [that they offer to the LORD],” and we expound the word איש/a person, what does the inference teach us when it says איש איש/when any man? To include the non-Jews who make vows of votive offerings and free-will-offerings like an Israelite.

The sacrifices of non-Jews: one is not liable on their account for piggul, remnant, or defilement, and if [a priest] slaughters them outside [the Temple], he is not liable, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose declares him liable.
The things for which one is not liable on account of piggul, one is liable on account of remnant and defilement except blood.
Rabbi Shimon declares one liable for anything which is normally eaten, but for wood, frankincense and incense, one is not liable for [transgressions involving] defilement.
Section one: Non-Jews may bring sacrifices to the Temple, and this probably was not altogether an uncommon occurrence in the Second Temple period. Rabbi Meir says that the laws concerning piggul, remnant, defilement and the prohibition of slaughtering a sacrifice outside of the Temple do not apply to these sacrifices. What this means is that if someone has an improper intent while offering this sacrifice, and then someone eats the meat, the one who ate the meat is not liable for karet, as he would be had the sacrifice been brought by a Jew. The same holds true if the sacrifice is left over, or if someone eats it while impure. While doing so is prohibited, one who does so is not liable for karet, according to Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yose says that the same laws that govern sacrifices brought by Jews also govern sacrifices brought by non-Jews and that one who eats from such a sacrifice would be liable for karet.
Section two: This section refers to the list found in mishnah three above. For all of those things, while the laws of piggul don’t apply, the laws of remnant and defilement do apply. Thus if one eats one of them after the time has elapsed, he is liable for transgressing the laws of remnant, and if one eats one of them while impure, he has violated the prohibition of eating holy things while impure. The one exception is blood one who eats blood has violated the prohibition of eating blood, but he has not violated other prohibitions.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that for anything that is normally eaten, one can violate the prohibitions of eating it while defiled. This would apply to the fistful of the minhah offering, the priests’ minhah offering and other edible things found in the list in mishnah three. However, if one eats or burns inedible things, such as wood or incense, while impure, he is not liable. The sages disagree and hold that he is liable for violating the prohibition of impurity in such cases as well.

אין חייבין משום פגול נותר וטמא – for the offering disqualified by improper intention is derived by an analogy from that of a remnant (see Talmud Zevakhim 45a), through [the words] "עון" "עון"/”iniquity,” “iniquity,” (see Leviticus 22:18: “or to incur guilt requiring a penalty payment,” and Numbers 18:1: “You and your sons and the ancestral house under your charge shall bear any guilt connected with the sanctuary; you and your sons alone shall bear any guilt connected with your priesthood.”) and remnant is derived from ritually impure in an analogy of "חלול" "חלול"/desecrated, desecrated, (see 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/יחללו My holy name.” and Leviticus 22:15: “But [the priests] must not allow the Israelites to profane/ולא יחללו the sacred donations that they set aside for the LORD,) but regarding the impure, it is written (Leviticus 22:2): “Instruct Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous about the sacred donations that the Israelites consecrate to me,” but not the holy things of the heathens. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

דברים שאין חייבין עליהן משום פגול – as for example, the taking of a fistful of the meal-offering and the incense and everything that is taught in our Mishnah (see Chapter 4, Mishnah 3).

חייבין משום טומאה – a person who eats them while in bodily impurity is liable for extirpation.

חוץ מן הדם – that the Biblical verse excluded it as it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “[for the life of the flesh is in the blood,] and I have assigned it to you [for making expiation for your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation],” yours will be like the rest of unconsecrated meat, and not like Holy Thing. And further it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “for making expiation for your lives upon the altar,” for expiation I have given it, but not for sacrilege. Therefore, he is not liable for it not because of impurity and not because of remnant and not because of improper intention, but rather because of merely consuming blood.

בדבר שדרכן להאכל – that it is the manner of human beings to consume them, and even though it is from that which is offered as incense, as for example, the taking of a fistful of meal-offering and the meal-offering of the priests and things similar to it, but the frankincense and the wood and the incense, we are not obligated for them because of ritual impurity. But the Rabbis argued with this and strengthened it for ritual impurity, from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 7:19): “Flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; [it shall be consumed in fire,” and the extra word of הבשר/the flesh [in the verse quoted above]: “As for other flesh, only he who is pure may eat such flesh,” includes the wood and the frankincense. But the Halakha is according to the Sages, for the wood and the frankincense also have reason to be ritually impure. But wood does not cause impurity other than the wood of a sacrifice alone, for if something ritually impure touched it, it is prohibited to burn them upon the altar.

לשם זבח – to exclude the change in holiness, as for example, for the sake of another sacrifice.

Introduction When a priest offers a sacrifice, he must have six things in mind while doing so. Our mishnah teaches what these six things are.

לשם זובח – to exclude the change in owners as we derived above at the beginning of the first chapter (i.e., Mishnah 1) from (Deuteronomy 23:24): “You must fulfill what has crossed your lips and performed what you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD our God, etc.”

The sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of six things:
For the sake of the sacrifice, The priest must have in mind what type of sacrifice is being offered, for instance an olah must be offered with the intent that it be an olah, and not a shelamim.

לשם אשים – to exclude if he slaughtered it on the condition to make of it roasted pieces on the coals.

For the sake of the sacrificer, The priest must have in mind the person who is bringing the sacrifice. In other words, he must intend that the sacrifice should “count” for that person.

לשם ריח – to exclude if he roasted them first outside of the pile of wood on the altar in the Temple, for furthermore, this does not causes its scent to rise.

For the sake of the [Divine] Name, The priest must have in mind that the sacrifice is for God (our God, of course) and not for some other god, or any other entity one could think of.

לשם הנחת ריח – please to the Holy One, Blessed be He who said and we fulfill his will. And all of these we derive them from as it is written (Leviticus 1:9): “a gift of pleasing odor.”

For the sake of fire-offerings, When sacrificing the priest has to have in mind that it will be burned on the altar, and not that it will merely be burned.

לשם חטא – for the sake of his sin that he brings it upon it.

For the sake of fragrance, The sacrifice must be offered with the intent to produce a fragrance for God, as it says in Leviticus 1:9, “an olah, a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance.”

אף מי שלא היה בלבו לשם אחד מכל אלו – but rather that he merely slaughtered it, it is fit/appropriate.

For the sake of pleasing; The final word (in Hebrew) of the above-verse is “pleasing.” The priest must have in mind that the sacrifice be pleasing to God.

שהוא תנאי ב"ד – that he should merely slaughter it, but not state its purpose, perhaps he will come to state that it was not for that sake.

And a hatat and an asham for the sake of sin. A hatat and an asham come to atone for sins. They must be offered with the sake that they atone for the sin that they are intended to atone for.

שאין המחשבה הולכת אלא אחר העובד – Therefore, if he would say that it was not for their sake, even though the owners stated that it was for their sake, it is not anything, for the matter does not depend upon them, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): “it shall not count for him who offered it,”. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

Rabbi Yose said: even if one did not have any of these purposes in his heart, it is valid, because it is a regulation of the court. According to Rabbi Yose, even if the priest did not have any of these intentions, the sacrifice is still valid. This is because the court stipulates that any sacrifice done without one of these intentions (but not with an improper intention) is valid.

Since the intention is determined only by the worshipper. This line explains the entire mishnah. The intent of the worshipper, meaning the priest, is what is determinative of the sacrifice, and not the intent of the owner of the sacrifice. If the worshipper had these six things in mind when offering the sacrifice, the sacrifice is valid even if the owner had an intent that would disqualify the sacrifice.