Zevachim 47a — the Talmud in English

From where is it derived concerning one who is occupied with sacred matters,

who slaughters them without intending the slaughter to be for sacred matters, but as one occupied with other matters [the wording of Rashi. And in tractate Hullin Rashi explained that the lack of intention is in relation to the slaughter, for he held a knife in his hand and did not intend to slaughter, and nevertheless the slaughter was effected through him. But here it implies that the lack of intention is a lack of intention to be occupied with sacred matters

that it is invalid?

Rav Huna said to him: From here:

as it is stated, “And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord”—

until the slaughter is for the sake of a young bull.

Shmuel said to

Rav Huna:

This we already have,

for we already knew that, ideally, it is a mitzva that the slaughter be for the sake of a young bull; but that which we raised as a question—

to invalidate, from where?

Rav Huna said to him:

We learn it from here, from what is written:

“According to your will you shall slaughter it”—

slaughter it with your knowledge,

and not when you are occupied with another matter. And Scripture repeated it concerning him to make it indispensable.

We learned in the Mishna:

That the thought follows only the one performing the service.

And the Gemara explains:

Our Mishna

is

not in accordance with this tanna.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Yosei said:

I heard

that the owners

render piggul

the service of the priest invalid, when the priest performs in silence and they think a thought of piggul.

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Yosei? For the verse says, “And the one who brings his offering

to the Lord.” Since it calls it “his offering,” this implies that it is speaking of the owner, and it calls him “the one who brings.” And it is proven that the owners too are called “the one who brings,” and we read concerning them, “the one who brings—it shall not be considered,” meaning that their invalid thought invalidates the offering, like the thought of the priest who brings it.

Abaye said: Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Eleazar all hold: This one,

the owner of the offering,

thinks

a thought of piggul,

and this one,

the priest,

performs the service; it is

the invalid thought of

a thought!

Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Yosei—

that which we said.

Rabbi Eliezer—

as we learned:

An Israelite

who slaughters for an idolater

his animal,

his slaughter is valid,

the animal is permitted for eating, since the slaughterer is an Israelite, and we do not concern ourselves with the thought of the owner, who intends that the Israelite’s slaughter be for idolatry.

But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates

the slaughter and forbids it for eating, according to the law of one who slaughters for idolatry, for the thought of the owner is effective in invalidating the slaughter of the Israelite.

Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Eleazar—

as we learned: Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Eleazar stated a general principle

concerning Shabbat, with regard to the measure determining liability for the labor of carrying:

Any

thing that has no importance,

which is not fit to be stored away,

which is not fit to be stored and guarded, such as menstrual blood or something forbidden for benefit,

and

likewise something that is fit to be stored if it had the required measure, but this, because of its smallness,

people do not store away

a small object

like it,

one is not liable for it on account of carrying on Shabbat.

But

if it was made fit for this,

that is, there was a person who assigned it importance and stored it away, even though it does not have the measure of importance, because for him it is important even in a smaller measure,

and another came and carried it out

that object that had been made fit,

this one becomes liable

the other person who carried it out

through the thought of that one

who stored it away.

And now the Gemara comes to explain that although Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Eleazar stated one thing, they do not all hold the law of the other. Rather, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Eleazar

both hold the view of Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Yosei

who said that the owners, through their thought, render the priest’s service piggul.

For

now, outside,

outside the place of the Temple, such as one who slaughters the animal of an idolater and one who carries out on Shabbat,

we say

that the thought of this one determines the status of the one performing the act.

If so,

inside,

namely, with offerings,

is it necessary

to say that the thought of this one invalidates the service of that one, since every law of thought was stated with regard to offerings?

But Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Yosei does not hold the view of both of them.

For

perhaps inside,

where the law of thought was stated,

he is the one who said

that the thought of this one invalidates the service of that one. But

outside, we do not say so.

Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Eleazar,

who assigns significance to one person’s thought in order to make the other liable for the labor of carrying,

holds the view of Rabbi Eliezer

concerning an Israelite who slaughters and the gentile owner thinks of idolatry.

For

now, with regard to Shabbat, we say

this one thinks and that one becomes liable.

With regard to idolatry, is it necessary to say so!?

For liability for idolatry applies to those services that resemble the service in the Temple; therefore, with regard to thought as well, they resemble the services in the Temple.

But

Rabbi Eliezer,

who said that the thought of the gentile owner invalidates the Israelite’s slaughter,

does not hold the view of Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Eleazar,

who said that one who stored away an object on Shabbat that is not fit to be stored away causes his fellow to become liable for it, for

perhaps with regard to idolatry,

which resembles the services in the Temple,

you said

that it is invalid

in the manner of inside. But with regard to Shabbat,

one should not make him liable on account of another’s thought,

for the Torah prohibited “thoughtful labor,”

meaning that the labor must be significant to the one performing it. And how can the thought of the other person, who stored away an object that is less than the measure for storing away, be effective to make this one, who did not assign it significance, liable? For with regard to him, an act of carrying of such a measure is not considered “thoughtful labor,” and he does not intend to perform labor through it.

We shall return to you, chapter Beit Shammai

Mishna:

What are their places,

where is the place of their slaughter, the receiving of their blood, the sprinkling of their blood, and their eating

of the sacrifices?

A.

All the sacrifices that are

most holy sacrifices [sin offering, guilt offering, burnt offering, and communal peace offerings]

(sin-offering, guilt-offering, burnt-offering, and communal peace-offering)

their slaughter

is in the north

of the courtyard.

B.

The bull and the goat of Yom Kippur

which are sin offerings—

their slaughter is in the north, and the receiving of their blood in a ministering vessel is in the north.

And their blood

of the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur

requires sprinkling

within and within

upon the space between the staves

of the Ark, and likewise it requires sprinklings in the Sanctuary,

and upon the curtain, and upon the golden altar.

If he omitted

one placing of them

it

prevents

the atonement, and he must bring another sacrifice.

The remainder of the blood

of the bull and the goat

he would pour upon the western base of the outer altar. And if he did not place

the remainder of the blood upon the base,

he did not prevent

the atonement by this.

C.

The bulls that are burned [the bull for the unwitting communal decision, and the bull of the anointed priest]

(the bull for the unwitting ruling of the community and the bull of the anointed priest)

and the goats that are burned [the goats for communal idolatry],

which are sin offerings and are not eaten but rather burned—

their slaughter is in the north, and the receiving of their blood in a ministering vessel is in the north.

And their blood

of the bulls and the goats that are burned

requires sprinkling

in the Sanctuary,

upon the curtain and upon the golden altar

he omitted

one placing of them

it

prevents

the atonement.