Masechet Zevachim, Tractate Zevachim. This is for hatzlachah (success) for Moshe ben Sarah Simchah (Moshe son of Sarah Simchah), Eliyah ben Dinah (Eliyah son of Dinah), Moshe ben Dinah (Moshe son of Dinah), Yaakov ben Dinah (Yaakov son of Dinah), and Yitzchak ben Dinah (Yitzchak son of Dinah); le'ilui nishmat (for the elevation of the soul) Avraham ben Lizah (Avraham son of Lizah) and Limor bat Gershom (Limor daughter of Gershom); and zivugim (suitable matches) for Tamar bat Yehudit (Tamar daughter of Yehudit), Rivkah bat Dinah (Rivkah daughter of Dinah), and Mazal bat Michal (Mazal daughter of Michal); and hatzlachah begashmiut veruchniyut (success in material and spiritual matters) for Chayim ben Simchah (Chayim son of Simchah), David ben Ester (David son of Ester), and Yaakov ben Elyat (Yaakov son of Elyat).
Now we begin the Gemara. We’re on mem vav amud bet (page 46b). Amar Rav Yehudah amar Rav (Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav): chatat (sin offering) that he slaughtered leshem olah (for the sake of a burnt offering) is pesulah (invalid). We’ve done that. A korban chatat that he slaughtered leshem olah is invalid. That’s daf peh (folio 80), by the way. If he slaughtered it leshem chullin (for the sake of unconsecrated property), it is kesherah (valid). That’s better. It’s better when you do it shelo beminah (not of its own type). Shelo beminah is better than minah (of its own type). Minah is a korban (sacrifice). Better to go outside the genre of korbanot (sacrifices); you won’t mess it up. Right, exactly. That’s the pshat (plain meaning), bediyuk (exactly).
Amar Rabbi Elazar (Rabbi Elazar said): mai ta'ama deRav (What is Rav’s reason)? What’s Rav’s reason for saying that you machshir (validate) an olah (burnt offering) brought leshem chullin—or chatat, I’m sorry, leshem chullin? Velo yechalelu et kodshei Benei Yisrael (They shall not profane the sacred offerings of the Children of Israel): kodashim mechallalim kodashim (Sacred offerings invalidate sacred offerings), ein chullin mechallalim kodashim (Unconsecrated things do not invalidate sacred offerings). Do you hear? When it says velo yechalelu, what is it saying? Nothing will be mechallel (profane). It’s not saying, “Don’t do it”; it’s describing what happens: velo yechalelu, it will not become chullin. Velo yechalelu—it doesn’t work. Why? No machashavah (thought) outside the realm of kodashim will mechallel unless it is leshem chullin. The person knows it is a chatat; I guess he has to know that. If he slaughtered it leshem chullin, it is kesherah, because ein chullin mechallalim kodashim. Very good.
So the Gemara says, metiv Rava (Rava raises an objection). The pasuk (verse) about shelo lishmah (not for its proper purpose) is obviously a different pasuk, he says. We said, “Veshachat otah” (And he shall slaughter it). Veshachat otah—that refers to leshem kodashim acherim (for other sacred offerings). For chatat leshem olah, not leshem chullin, that’s the pasuk. So the Gemara says, metiv Rava. Rava has a question: amar Rabbi Yose (Rabbi Yose said), af mi shelo hayah belibo leshem echad mikol elu, kasher (Even one who did not intend any of these is valid).
Didn’t we learn in our Mishnah yesterday that there are six things you have to have kavanah (intention) for—leshem this, leshem that, and so on? And what did Rabbi Yose say? If you didn’t have any kavanah for these items, it’s because there is a tnai beit din (a court stipulation). What is the tnai beit din? The ta'ama (reason) he gives is that if a person slaughtered it stam (without specific intent), we said it’s okay because he had no intention at all. That’s stam. Yesterday we said the beit din (court) would tell the person, “Don’t think of anything; leave the thinking to us.” Therefore, it’s considered that the beit din is taking care of it.
Ha, hayah belibo leshem chullin, pasul (But if he intended unconsecrated property, it is invalid). It sounds as if that’s because he didn’t think of anything. The tnai beit din says, “Just keep quiet, be blank; we’ll add the kavanah for you.” Fine. But it sounds as if, if the person added his two cents leshem chullin, that’s where Rabbi Yose says there’s going to be a problem.
Amar leh Abaye (Abaye said to him): dilma (perhaps), if he had no intention at all, it is kasher umeratzeh (valid and effects atonement); if he intended leshem chullin, it is kasher ve'eino meratzeh (valid but does not effect atonement). There’s the difference. Maybe what Rabbi Yose said is that if you slaughtered it stam, with no intention at all, there would be no machashavah at all: it is kasher umeratzeh. That means not only is it valid, but it provides kapparah (atonement).
If he intended leshem chullin, what’s the diyuk? You’re not going to get kapparah, but it’s still valid. That doesn’t contradict what we just said. The korban is valid; it can stay on the mizbe'ach (altar), but kapparah is not achieved. It’s not oleh; whatever chatat you had, you have to bring another korban leshem chovah (to fulfill the obligation). That’s not a problem, but at least it’s valid. We don’t have to take it off the mizbe'ach, and you don’t have to worry about all these things. So what do you see here? We can say there’s no problem with Rabbi Yose, and no contradiction to the rule we just stated.
That’s why Rashi says, in the first Rashi on the Mishnah, “leshem zevach le'afukei shinui kodesh” (For the sake of the offering, excluding a change of sacred status). He’s giving you the results right at the beginning. Beautiful. Beautiful. Took this off.
Amar Rabbi Elazar: chatat sheshechatah leshem chullin, kesherah. So if you shechted it leshem chullin, it’s valid. Mishum chullin (because he thought it was unconsecrated), pesulah. What is leshem chullin? What is mishum chullin? Look at Rashi. The bottom line of mishum chullin is kasvur shehem chullin (He thought they were unconsecrated). He’s mamash a mit'asek (acting without awareness)—he doesn’t even know it’s a chatat. Dehainu mit'asek bidevarim acherim ve'eino asuk bekorban (That is, he is occupied with other things and not with the offering).
He doesn’t even realize it’s a chatat. That means the first person knows it’s a chatat and just had kavanah leshem chullin. This person doesn’t even realize it’s a chatat. That means you have to have some kavanah; you have to have something. He thinks he’s mit'asek with chullin, this person. No, the first person knows it’s a chatat; he just had kavanah leshem chullin.
Mishum chullin means what? I’ll explain again. I have a korban chatat, and I know it’s a chatat. As Rashi said just above, look at leshem chullin: the person knows it’s a chatat and slaughtered it leshem chullin. Take it as bemezid (intentionally), or he thought you were allowed to change it—whatever, that’s a guess with his therapist. But the point is, the person slaughtered a korban chatat knowing that it was a chatat. Why would you slaughter it leshem chullin? Kachah, shteyt im on, kachah lo. In the second case, he didn’t even know it was a chatat. Whatever it is, he’s slaughtering it leshem chullin because he thinks it’s chullin. That’s mit'asek.
That’s too much, so we disqualify the last case. There’s a difference between leshem chullin and mishum chullin. Leshem means you know what it is, but you did it leshem something else. Mishum means you thought it was chullin from the outset. That ruins it. That ruins it, exactly. That’s mit'asek; that’s too much.
Can we say that about the other korbanot too, where it’s valid to slaughter shelo lishmah, if he thought it was a—? It sounds as though mishum chullin is beyond that. That’s what it sounds like to me. So I’m saying—yeah, yeah, that’s like mit'asek, mit'asek bidevarim acherim. Right, mit'asek, regular mit'asek: you don’t even know; you’re not aware.
Okay, he says chatat specifically, because we’re talking about chatat, rabbotai. Ijeh! He says, who’s reading? How about a person who is in the Amidah (standing prayer)? Is he mit'asek? It’s mit'asek; it doesn’t count. That’s the famous Rav Chaim Soloveitchik (Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik), the way he understands the Rambam (Maimonides). Rav Chaim Soloveitchik understands that there are two kavanot in the Amidah. Number one is perush hamilim—you have to know what you’re saying. And that’s only me'akev (essential for validity) the first berachah (blessing). So, as long as you have the first berachah in the bank, you’re okay, even if you have no idea what you’re saying in the rest.
The second kavanah, he says, is the overriding one: you have to know you’re standing in front of Hashem. If you don’t have that kavanah, that you know you’re standing in front of Hashem, that’s posel (invalidates) the whole Amidah. That’s in all 19 berachot. That’s not an Amidah. Amidah means standing in—That’s your point: it’s mit'asek; the person is mit'asek.
I told you, Chacham Baruch used to say to us in Magen David in eighth grade, when we used to finish the Amidah, “baruch haba” (You came back). He would say baruch haba. “You were all over the world; you went around the world in the Amidah. Baruch haba, you came back. Oseh shalom (you landed).”
Kideva'i minei Shemuel meRav Huna (Shemuel asked Rav Huna): minayin lemit'asek bekodashim shehu pasul (From where do we know that an unaware act involving sacred offerings is invalid)? Shochet kodashim belo bekavanah, ela kemit'asek bidevarim acherim (He slaughters sacred offerings without intent, occupied instead with other matters). It sounds like this applies to all kodashim. Shene'emar (as it is stated): Veshachat et ben habakar lifnei Hashem (He shall slaughter the bull before Hashem), ad shetehe shechitah leshem ben bakar (Until the slaughter is for the sake of a bull). So you have to know at least that it’s a ben bakar. Which means it’s a korban. Right, kodesh (sacred). He doesn’t know it’s a ben bakar? He doesn’t know which korban? No, he knows it’s a cow, but he doesn’t know it’s a consecrated korban.
So it says, “Veshachat et ben habakar lifnei Hashem, ad shetehe shechitah leshem ben bakar.” What does ben bakar mean? It means kodesh bakar. Leshem ben bakar, leshem korban. Right.
According to Rashi’s explanation brought earlier, the derashah is understood literally: you need to have intent for the animal, not merely to lift the sakin (knife). Right. This is about a different kavanah. The shechitah (ritual slaughter) has to be leshem shechitah, not that you were just picking up the knife and then suddenly cut the simanim (the identifying organs). I’m giving you an example of mit'asek. What are we talking about? “Veshachat.” Veshachat means you need kavanah for shechitah, as opposed to what? Mindless shechitah. No, no, barbecue. Why are you bringing chullin into it now? I’m not talking about chullin now. I’m talking about a different mit'asek.
The Gemara is asking a different question: minayin lemit'asek bekodashim shehu pasul? Mit'asek in any of these things—not the case we just discussed. Right, a different mit'asek. All mit'asek acts are no good. You could be mit'asek, thinking it’s chullin, or you could know it’s a korban but be mit'asek in the shechitah. For example, I have the knife in my hand, I turn around, and I slaughter the animal. I was mit'asek in the shechitah. That’s this case. Look at Rashi: “shochet kodashim belo bekavanah.” It’s a different mit'asek, but the point is, once we show you that mit'asek is no good, it’s no good.
Therefore, the pasuk is very nice. “Veshachat”—it’s called shechitah, “ben habakar lifnei Hashem,” shechitah leshem ben bakar. You have to know you’re slaughtering ben bakar—not just moving your knife, not just waving the knife.
Amar leh: zo beyadeinu hi (This is already in our hands)—this we knew already. Where do we know that? Chazak ubaruch. We know you need kavanah. Our question was le'akev minayin (From where do we know it is essential)? How do we know it’s essential? We know this part. You didn’t want to know about the pasuk, “Veshachat et ben habakar.” Amar leh: the pasuk says, “lirtzonchem tizbachuhu” (You shall slaughter it for your acceptance)—that is, leda'atchem zivchu (Slaughter with your intention), meaning kavanah for shechitah. And we have a rule: whenever the—Exactly. Shana hakatuv bekodashim le'akev (Scripture repeats this for sacred offerings to make it essential). Rashi says, “beyadeinu,” meaning, “We already knew this proof.” Mihu mitzvah hu denafka velo le'ikuv (However, it teaches a commandment, not an essential requirement). Beautiful. Now let’s continue.
Back to the Mishnah: she'ein hamachashavah holechet ela achar ha'oved (the thought follows the person performing the service). What did we say? The machashavah for a psul (invalidity) follows whom? The person doing the avodah (Temple service). So whoever is doing the avodah—if it’s the shochet (slaughterer), it’s the shochet; if it’s the kohen (priest), it’s the kohen. That’s where the psul applies. Therefore, if this kohen is doing an avodah and the owner is screaming, “Ah, lo lishmah”—forget it. He cannot affect the korban; only the person doing the avodah can.
So the Gemara says, matnitin dela chi hai tanna (Our Mishnah is not according to this tanna). The Mishnah is not going according to the following tanna, Rabbi Yosei. It’s not according to a different tanna. Detanya, we have a baraita: amar Rabbi Elazar berabbi Yosei (Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei said), shama'ti shehabe'alim mefaglin (I heard that the owners can render offerings pigul). Okay? Even if the kohen is bringing the korban, the owner’s intention can make it pigul (a disqualified offering). That’s exactly what we did not say in the Mishnah.
Rashi says, “shama'ti shehabe'alim mefaglin ba'avodat hakohen” (I heard that the owners render it pigul during the priest’s service). “Im kibel hakohen bishtikah vechashvu habe'alim aleha al pigul, havei pigul” (If the priest received it silently and the owners intended pigul, it is pigul). He said shtikah (silence). There’s a diyuk (inference) here. I’m accepting your diyuk. Shtikah. Maybe a person can’t undo something positive, but he can put his da'at (intention) in where there’s nothing. Right, that’s a—your diyuk is accepted. Shtikah is—what comes after shtikah? It’s even kavanah.
So what do you see? The be'alim (owners) can be mefagel (render an offering pigul) a korban even though they are not the oved (the person performing the service). Amar Rava: mai ta'ama deRabbi Elazar berabbi Yosei (What is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei’s reason)? De'amar kra (For the verse says): “Vehikriv hamakriv korbano l'Hashem minchah solet belulah birvi'it hahin shemen” (The one bringing shall offer his offering to Hashem, a fine-flour offering mixed with a quarter-hin of oil). The pasuk says, “Vehikriv hamakriv.” The Torah is calling the owner of the korban the makriv (one who brings an offering). He’s not the makriv; the kohen is the makriv. It tells us, “The owner will bring a minchah”—he’ll bring this. No, the kohen brings all that. The upshot is that it calls the owner the makriv. Therefore, we see that he is the makriv.
Rashi explains: “vehikriv hamakriv” is written in the section about nesachim (accompanying libations); the verse calls him the one bringing his offering. Therefore, he too is included among those bringing, and “velo yechashev” (and it shall not be considered). He is included in the pigul issue because the makriv is subject to pigul, and he is called the makriv.
Amar Abaye (Abaye said): Rabbi Elazar berabbi Yosei, Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar all hold that zeh mechashev vezeh oved havya machashavah (One person intends and another performs; it constitutes intention). Exactly. The be'alim have the kavanah, whatever the kavanah is, and the person doing the avodah—the kohen—does it without having any, bishtikah, as we said, and it constitutes a machashavah. Rabbi Elazar berabbi Yosei? We just said it! Ha d'amran! Forgot it already?
Rabbi Eliezer: ditnan (as we learned), “Hashochet l'oved kochavim shechitasho kesheirah” (One who slaughters for an idol-worshipper has a valid slaughter). Great. A person slaughters a behemah (animal), chullin, for a person of avodah zarah (idolatry); shechitasho kesheirah (his slaughter is valid). VeRabbi Eliezer posel (But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it).
Why does Rabbi Eliezer invalidate it? Rashi explains that the Mishnah explicitly says the presumed intention of an oved kochavim (idol-worshipper) is for avodat kochavim. Even though he himself did not slaughter it—somebody else slaughtered it—and the owner had kavanah leshem avodat kochavim, it’s invalid. Aha! Even though he himself was not the shochet, somebody else slaughtered it, and the owner had kavanah leshem avodat kochavim, presumably because he’s a goy (non-Jew). So Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it. Why? Because the ordinary machashavah in avodat kochavim is—so even though I slaughtered it, the Jew slaughtered it, it’s the owner’s intention. Again, we’re talking about a case where the Jew slaughtered it stam. Stam! What do you see? The Jew slaughtered it, while the goy thought of avodat kochavim. Presumably, that’s what he thought. The point is that it’s because the presumed thought of the oved kochavim during slaughter is for avodat kochavim. Therefore, even when a Jew slaughters it, it becomes asur (forbidden).
So you see what? Somebody else’s kavanah—the owner’s—can have an effect. Did that have nothing to do with any menachot (meal offerings) and nesachim that would have to come with the korban? Because those would be issues? Legabei (regarding)—if a goy gives nesachim, it could be yayin nesech (wine used for idolatry), or whatever he intended that would have to come with the korban. No, I don’t think this is about a korban. This is regular chullin. This legabei isur hana'ah (prohibition of benefit).
Now the Gemara continues with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. This is in Masechet Shabbat (Tractate Shabbat), rabbotai: “Klal amar Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, kol she'eino kasher l'hatzni'a ve'ein matzni'in kamohu vehuchshar l'zeh vehitzni'o u'va acher vehotzi'o, nitchayev zeh b'machashavah shel zeh” (Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: Anything not fit for storage, which someone made fit and stored, and another carried out, makes the latter liable through the former’s intention).
Rashi explains that this is the laws of hotza'ah (carrying out). It has to be a significant item that people normally matzni'a (store); it has to be important to them. If it’s not a significant item, you’re not chayav (liable). The Mishnah tells you the shi'ur (minimum measure) for this and for that. A normal item is something people store; it has to be a davar chashuv (significant object).
Now, let’s say it’s significant to me, so I store it. I wouldn’t normally store this item, but he stores it, and I carry out the item that you stored. Your machashavah affects my hotza'ah on Shabbat. The owner can be the one who stored it. Nobody else stores this item; he did it. So he can create a hotza'ah for that item even for somebody else.
Rashi says this is, for example, dam niddah (menstrual blood) or something prohibited for benefit. Nobody keeps those items. Is anybody saving dam niddah for a souvenir? Therefore, it is not kasher l'hatzni'a (fit to be stored); it isn’t normal to store it. Something that is kasher l'hatzni'a is an item worth saving. Dam niddah is not fit to be stored; it’s garbage. But an item that is fit to be stored is chashuv. If its shi'ur is so small that people don’t store it, that’s another case. Either the item is ra'uy lehatzni'a (fit to be stored), or it is fit to be stored but you don’t have the right shi'ur. If someone else carries it out on Shabbat, does that person become liable? It’s because the other person’s intention made it significant for him. So the person carrying it can be a mechalel Shabbat (one who desecrates Shabbat). Yeah, exactly. You hit the point.
So the Gemara says: what do all these prove? Somebody else’s machashavah can have an effect. We have three cases: korbanot, Shabbat, and avodah zarah. Wait, wait—isn’t it the way we said? It’s not really avodah zarah; is it avodah zarah, or is he slaughtering for an ordinary goy? He’s slaughtering for the goy. The point is that the goy’s presumed machashavah is for avodah zarah. Therefore, that’s going to be asur derabbanan (forbidden by rabbinic law). Right, yes, for avodah zarah.
So the Gemara says, tarvaihu it lehu deRabbi Elazar beRabbi Yosei (Both hold like Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei). The first two rabbis, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, agree with Rabbi Elazar beRabbi Yosei legabei kodashim (regarding sacred offerings): the owner’s pigul can affect the korban. Why? Hashta bachutz amrinan, bifnim miba'ya (If we say it applies outside, need we ask about inside)? If we already say someone’s machashavah can affect things outside the Temple, bifnim, in the azarah (Temple courtyard), where there is a din (law) of machashavah, all the more so. Where was the din of machashavah written? In the azarah, for pigul. If machashavah works outside, where we don’t have a din of machashavah, and the person’s machashavah still has an effect, then where machashavah does have an effect, certainly it will apply.
Rashi asks: outside, in avodat kochavim and Shabbat, where the Torah doesn’t explicitly write about machashavah, do we say that one person intends and another becomes liable through the intention? Inside, by korbanot, where machashavah is written, all the more so? Rabbi Elazar beRabbi Yosei, however, who says this about korbanot, leit leh letarvaihu (He does not hold like both of them); he doesn’t agree with the other two regarding Shabbat and avodah zarah. Dilma (perhaps), we say it inside, but we don’t say it outside. Maybe we only say it where the Torah says it: inside, because that’s where machashavah is written, but not in the other two cases.
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says this about Shabbat, agrees with Rabbi Eliezer. They agree on the avodah zarah case; they don’t disagree. Hashta beShabbat amrinan, ba'avodat kochavim miba'ya (If we say it about Shabbat, need we ask about idolatry)? Do I have to tell you about avodah zarah? Remember, we said in Masechet Sanhedrin that the avodot (acts of service) for which you are chayav in avodah zarah are whatever avodot you would perform for a korban. There’s a similarity between avodah zarah and korbanot. Only the acts you would do if you were serving in the Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple) would make you liable for avodah zarah min haTorah (by Torah law).
Rabbi Eliezer, who says this about avodah zarah, leit leh deRabbi Shimon ben Elazar; he won’t agree with the Shabbat case. Dilma, as we just said, we say it about avodat kochavim because it is like inside, but not about Shabbat. Melechet machashevet asrah Torah (The Torah prohibited purposeful labor): for melachah (prohibited labor) to be melachah, you need kavanah. As we learned there, if a person isn’t mitkaven on Shabbat, then for melachah to be melachah, you need kavanah. Therefore, maybe if you didn’t have it, his kavanah won’t affect me.
Let’s read Rashi here. “Ba'avodat kochavim miba'ya”—because avodat kochavim is similar to korbanot. Why? Because avodat kochavim is like Temple service. The Torah makes a person liable for it, as we say in the section on the four forms of execution: “zove'ach lelohim yochoram bilti l'Hashem” (one who sacrifices to other gods shall be destroyed, except to Hashem). You’re liable for acts of service fit for the Temple, whether or not that is the usual practice of that particular idolatry. Those are automatic for all forms of avodah zarah: the service done for a korban.
Why couldn’t Rashi simply say the reason is that throughout avodah zarah, hirhur (thought) is prohibited, and the hirhur is significant enough to make it forbidden? Why do we have to connect it to bifnim? Because the whole source for machashavah, if I hold that machashavah applies bifnim, is what I want to compare it to. That’s why—it’s more direct, more specific. Whatever it is, this is closer. My whole source is machashavah bifnim. You understand? Tell me, “Oh, a different reason: lo taturu.” Then you’re taking a different route. You could ask me, “Why is that enough? Would lo taturu be enough?” Because you see that machashavah works—this is avodah zarah. Let’s continue. You’re doing great.
Ve'inyan machashavah nami ika lemigmara mibifnim (The matter of intention, too, can be derived from inside). Right. Now continue: the Torah says regarding melechet machashevet. Melechet machashevet asrah Torah, connected to Shabbat and the parashah of the Mishkan in Vayakhel. It is melechet machashevet that a person does intentionally. Correct. All the melachot we learned from building the Mishkan. When they were building the Mishkan, there was kavanah. That’s how we learned that you need kavanah for Shabbat. The person intends to perform a complete act of labor, but he forgot that it was Shabbat or thought that this melachah was permitted. That’s mit'asek; that’s not a problem.
This measure is significant in his eyes; he isn’t intending to do a melachah. Right, this person thinks the shi'ur is not significant, so he’s not intending to do a melachah. The Torah therefore makes a person liable only for melechet machashevet.
Hadran alach Beit Shamai (We shall return to you, Beit Shamai). Rabbi, are there any korbanot that the ba'al doesn’t eat from? Yes: korban olah, korban minchah, chatat. So how could she have pigul on it if she’s not eating it? The mizbe'ach! Oh, it’s things that the—But she’s not—That’s the chiddush (novel point)! That’s the chiddush: the be'alim can be mefagel even though they’re not the makriv.
As the person is slaughtering—let’s say the kohen is slaughtering—and the owner is thinking, “Yeah, I’m bringing this korban to burn tomorrow,” you’ve made it pigul. And it’s not even in his power; he’s not bringing it up. HaKadosh Baruch Hu, chazak chazak! The asimon just fell! The asimon just fell! Rabbi, it takes time. Not a problem. He didn’t understand what was going on here. He’s not the makriv! He is the makriv—the makriv—what? The Torah is making him the makriv, but he’s not the real makriv. He’s an extension of the oved, like a virtual makriv. Unless you say he does the shechitah himself. Fine, we have shechitah. But what about everything else? Everything else! The zerikah (sprinkling) is done by the kohen, and this person is thinking of putting those things on the mizbe'ach tomorrow. The Mishnah said no. Right, that would be yotzei on this. That’s the Gemara, and they’re all going to be yotzei.
Wait, boys, beautiful. Rabbi, would that rule also hold for a sotah (suspected adulteress)? Could she ruin it? Could she ruin the kometz (handful of meal offering)? And then what? The water and the ceremonies wouldn’t affect her because she has a pigul minchah. Is she considered the owner? The ba'al. What’s the matir (permitting element) here? There’s a kometz. When he’s burning it—who is the matir? What does the kometz permit? So it permits the minchah on the mizbe'ach, whatever it is, whoever brings the korban. Whatever you’re burning? You only bring it afterward, huh? No, you have to—straight—That’s a burning.
It could be, but it could be that pigul was only said about things like a korban shelamim (peace offering) that have hartza'ah (acceptance), or that have kaparah—whatever the rules are. We did say that sotah is an exception. Look at other things. Can a goy—can you say—A goy’s korban isn’t a korban at all. He can always bring a nedavah (voluntary offering). All right, he can bring a nedavah, right? So could he have pigul on this korban? Yes, because a goy’s korban is like shelamim; everything’s the same. Maybe minchat sotah (the meal offering of a sotah)—we learned earlier that we excluded minchat sotah from certain things because it’s different; it’s a minchat kena'ot (jealousy offering). It’s meant to reveal something, to reveal whether she did—From chatat, yes, because it isn’t really a chatat.
Fine, my point is, maybe you could exclude it from this too, for some reason. And by the way, if it doesn’t work, the water isn’t going to work. You’re right! This woman is going to go into the water and say, “Hah! Just like so, so, so—right.” That’s Hashem—what a—she’s not only an adulteress, now she’s also doing another averah (transgression). No, not—Okay, ein hachi nami (that is indeed so), maybe she can’t do it. She wants to save herself from blowing up, fine, but she’s still going to get punished. Or he holds like Rabbi Yose, whatever; according to Rabbi Yose, she can do it. Meaning, she wants to go to a lawyer, and the lawyer tells her, “Don’t worry about drinking. Tell them you want to drink the paper. I have a way out for you.”
Why can’t it simply come from the sevara (logical reasoning) that ein shaliach lidvar averah (there is no agency for transgression)? The makriv, the owner, has an averah in his mind. No, the kohen isn’t doing an averah. We aren’t assigning an averah to the kohen. He didn’t do an averah. He’s helping him do an averah. It’s a big question: he is helping him do the averah. What averah? What averah? When the kohen does the avodah, if the ba'al has the wrong kavanah, we’re allowing the ma'aseh (act) of the oved to cause a sin for the owner. What sin? What are you counting him for? What are you telling the kohen? What sin did he do? Nothing. It says here that the korban is pigul. The kohen didn’t know, right. He didn’t know. But I’m saying the ma'aseh of one person is triggering—Triggering what? It’s triggering pigul. Right, that’s not the point. The point is that this isn’t giving an averah to the kohen. Right, not the kohen. The kohen doesn’t have to do teshuvah (repentance) on Yom Kippur for what he did. Right, but the kohen’s ma'aseh gives an averah to the ba'al. The result of what the kohen did—yes, this person’s da'at affects it. That’s not shaliach lidvar averah. That’s like I told the kohen to go kill, and he gets the avon (sin), and I get the avon because I sent him. No.
All right, let’s start Shacharit (morning prayer). We can start Shacharit early today, boys. Eizehu mekoman shel zevachim—“Where is the place that you have to bring the korbanot?” Baruch Hashem, at least our shiur knows that this is part of the tefillah (prayer). A lot of people say, “Oh, what is this? Never?” Okay, good enough. At least we’re aware that this is part of the service. These guys are waiting for Baruch She'amar. “Where’s Baruch She'amar?” They skip this, man. They’re so used to skipping it. Skip the whole perek (chapter), Eizehu mekoman. Go on to Baruch She'amar, next page.
All right. Eizehu mekoman shel zevachim. It’s a good question: where is the place you have to bring the korbanot? Meaning, where is the shechitah? We can learn “shechitan batzafon” (Their slaughter is in the north), “shechitan badarom” (Their slaughter is in the south). Where do you slaughter the korbanot and receive the blood? Kodshei kodashim (most sacred offerings)—let’s start with the first group. That’s korban chatat, korban asham (guilt offering), korban olah, and shalmei tzibbur (communal peace offerings): shechitan batzafon. Shechitan batzafon.
I told Benny the other night, when we were walking home, an amazing teaching of Maharil Diskin, Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin. He says something amazing: where do we get the rule that the korban olah is slaughtered in the north? Where did it come from? Ask a question, lich'orah (seemingly): the mizbe'ach is so big; you should be able to slaughter it on the mizbe'ach! Bring it onto the mizbe'ach and slaughter it there. The mizbe'ach was enormous, thirty-two amah (cubits) by whatever it is, the size of a building. So why not just slaughter it there, and then you’re right there—boom—and the whole thing goes onto the mizbe'ach? That’s great.
He says: where was the original korban olah, the first korban olah? The first korban olah was at the Akedah (Binding of Isaac). Yitzchak was on the mizbe'ach. When Yitzchak was on the mizbe'ach, what happened? Hashem came to him and said, “Don’t do it.” So Avraham thought, and Yitzchak thought, “Don’t do it,” because maybe Avraham had a bad machashavah. Therefore, you invalidate the whole thing. So why did Avraham bring a korban olah, according to Maharil Diskin? To atone for the machashavah he had. His intention was, right after bringing the korban olah, to go back to the Akedah.
He brings a Midrash (rabbinic exposition) that when the olah was on the mizbe'ach, Yitzchak was still there, because they didn’t take Yitzchak off the mizbe'ach until after the olah was brought. Avraham’s intention was to bring the olah, atone for the bad machashavah, whatever it was, and then continue. So he says the original olah couldn’t be slaughtered on the mizbe'ach because it was occupied; Avraham had to slaughter the olah off the mizbe'ach. He says that from there we got shechitatah batzafon, and not on the mizbe'ach, from Avraham Avinu (Abraham our forefather). That’s where he started the process. Phenomenal.
Par vesa'ir shel Yom HaKippurim (bull and goat of the Day of Atonement): par hachatat, se'ir chatat HaKippurim—their slaughter is in the north, and they receive the blood in a service vessel in the north. Their blood requires sprinkling between the poles. That’s inside the Kodesh Hakodashim (Holy of Holies). The kohen stands between the poles and sprinkles the blood of the par (bull) and dam hasa'ir (the goat’s blood) on the kaporet (ark cover): achat lema'lah vesheva lemattah (One above and seven below), the whole story.
On the parochet (curtain), the parochet is outside the Kodesh Hakodashim. He stands in the heichal (sanctuary hall), faces the parochet, which faces the aron (Ark), and sprinkles there as well, one above and seven below. And on the mizbach hazahav (golden altar), which is in the heichal, he also sprinkles. He mixes the bloods together and puts it on the four corners of the mizbe'ach. Also, matanah achat mehen me'akevet (One of these applications is essential). One of the applications we just mentioned—even one of them—is me'akev. So basically, you have to do them all, right? We learned that too. 43, 47. Exactly.
Shirei hadam (remaining blood): what do you do with the leftover blood? Hayah shofech al yesod ma'aravi (western base) of the mizbe'ach. Why do you put it on the yesod ma'aravi of the hamizbe'ach hachitzon (outer altar)? How come you don’t put it on the eastern side of the mizbe'ach? Because there’s no yesod there. The yesod doesn’t go around all sides of the mizbe'ach, so he says yesod ma'aravi. What does it say here? The mizbe'ach is surrounded by a yesod along its entire western and northern sides, and along one amah on the eastern and southern sides. The full sides were west and north, and on the east and south there was only a little. So when we say you have to put the shirayim there, it’s on the western side.
Im lo natan, lo ikev (If he did not pour it, he has not invalidated). If he didn’t pour the shirayim, lo ikev. Lo natan, lo ikev.
Parim hanisrafim (bulls that are burned): we did a whole Masechet on that, Horayot (Tractate Horayot). Par he'elem davar shel tzibbur (communal bull for an unwitting ruling), the par Kohen Mashiach (bull of the anointed priest). What do you do with those? This is hanisrafim, a chiddush. You take the meat of the korban after putting whatever you put on the mizbe'ach, and the leftovers are not eaten. You take them outside the azarah, outside the three machanot (camps), whatever it is, and burn them: parim hanisrafim.
Use'irim hanisrafim (goats that are burned): that’s a se'ir avodah zarah. Their slaughter is in the north, and they receive the blood in a service vessel in the north. Their blood requires sprinkling on the parochet. Again, he stands in the heichal facing the aron on the outside and sprinkles seven times. On the mizbach hazahav, he also puts it on the four corners. Matanah achat mehen me'akevet: even one application of this item is essential. He pours the remaining blood on the western base of the outer altar. Im lo natan, lo ikev.
Elu va'elu nisrafin beveit hadeshen (These and those are burned at the ash place). The par and se'ir of Yom HaKippurim, and the parim and use'irim hanisrafim—all these cases we mentioned—are not eaten like a regular chatat. They are burned outside Yerushalayim at a place called Beit Hadeshen (ash-removal place).
Reb Baruch used to love telling the story of the man on Friday night who was blessing his children: “Elu va'elu nisrafin beveit hadeshen.” He was an am ha'aretz (unlearned person); he didn’t know anything. The rabbi went to visit him and saw the man’s children come to him, kiss his hand, and say, “Elu va'elu nisrafin beveit hadeshen. Thank you, Daddy.” The rabbi said to him, “What kind of am ha'aretz are you? How can you say such a thing? Don’t you know what you’re saying? Elu va'elu…” The man felt so bad. He said, “I don’t know; those are the only words I know in the siddur (prayer book), whatever.”
Anyway, that night the rabbi went to sleep, and they came to him in a dream and said, “What did you do?” He said, “This was the purest berachah in Shamayim (Heaven); we were moving the letters around.” His kavanah was good. “You ruined the man; now you’ve made him sad. Go tell him to continue. Whatever he was doing, just let him continue his kavanah: ‘Elu va'elu nisrafin beveit hadeshen.’”
Okay, let’s read the Rashis now. Who’s going to read, Sal? Knock off the Mishnah. Now we’re going to have perush Rashi (Rashi’s commentary) on the siddur. “Kulan bikhlal chata'ot va'ashamot ve'olah veshalmei tzibbur, umihu mishum dechalukin bematan damim o behachsheratan hadar tanei lehu kol chad kede'iteih” (All are included among sin offerings, guilt offerings, burnt offerings, and communal peace offerings; since they differ in blood applications or requirements, each is taught according to its case).
Right, you’re going to see that we just said they’re all kodshei kodashim, and now we’re going to split them up. So we’re going to split them up. “Shechitatam batzafon ulekaman mefaresh mai ta'ama lo tana bekibutzan vekibul daman” (Their slaughter is in the north; below it explains why receiving their blood was not taught with them). Ah, that’s a good question. It just says shechitatam batzafon. What about kibul daman (receiving their blood)? It says shechitatam batzafon, right? It says kodshei kodashim, their slaughter is in the north. What about receiving the blood? We move on to the next item: kodshei kodashim, their slaughter is in the north. How come in the first grouping we didn’t say kabalah batzafon (receiving in the north)? It says right afterward, “vekibul daman.” Wait, that’s for the se'irei Yom HaKippurim. We haven’t been defining Eizehu mekoman shel zevachim: kodshei kodashim, their slaughter is in the north, and their blood is received in the north. You can’t just put both in. It didn’t say that. Well, we’ll see.
Continue: “Ufar vesa'ir shel Yom HaKippurim, bagemara yaliph ta'ama deyalfinan shechitatam vekibul daman bichli sharet batzafon” (The bull and goat of the Day of Atonement—the Gemara derives why their slaughter and blood reception are in the north in a service vessel). How do you know? “Dikh'tiv be'olah beSinai” (As it is written regarding the offering at Sinai): “vayasem ba'aganot” (He placed it in the basins). That’s how you know the blood has to be put in a kli sharet (service vessel), from Har Sinai (Mount Sinai). And we derive it for all the zevachim by comparison.
Those basins were bowls, and at Har Sinai it says, “vayasem et hadam ba'aganot.” So there they learned about the korban olah slaughtered at Har Sinai, the olat tamid ha'asuyah beHar Sinai (the regular burnt offering performed at Mount Sinai). That olah is in the parashah of Ki Tisa (When You Take), in the passage about the basins.
Haza'ah bein habadim (sprinkling between the poles): “Omed bein shnei badei ha'aron umazeh achat lema'lah vesheva lemattah” (He stands between the two poles of the Ark and sprinkles once above and seven times below). Okay, that’s Kippur. Opposite the kaporet, and he doesn’t touch it. On the parochet, as it says, “vekhen ya'aseh le'Ohel Mo'ed.” The next step is outside, and he sprinkles toward—And on the mizbach hazahav, as it says, “veyatza el hamizbach.” That’s all Kippur, by the way: one above and seven below inside, then outside, then on the mizbe'ach. Altogether, that makes 43 different kinds of sprinkling.
The first tanna says it is essential, as we derive in the chapter Beit Shamai. Beit Shamai—yesh lechatei. “Shefichat hadam veyishpoch el yesod yaliph bagemara, detnan hatam shirayim halalu yesod lo ikev hakaparah” (The pouring of the blood at the base is derived in the Gemara; we learned that the remaining blood at the base does not prevent atonement). Okay, lo ikev means it does not prevent the kaparah. The Gemara derives it from a baraita. Ah, “yachol ye'akev” (Might it be essential)? No, it’s not essential.
“Parim hanisrafim, par he'elem ufar Kohen Mashiach she'ein ne'ekhalin lakohanim ela nisrafin chutz liYerushalayim kedikhtiv behu el shefech hadeshen yisaref” (The burned bulls—the communal bull and the anointed priest’s bull—are not eaten by priests but burned outside Jerusalem, as written about them). We derive in the order of Yoma (Tractate Yoma) that it’s outside Yerushalayim.
“Use'irim hanisrafim,” the se'irei avodat kochavim, which are compared to the par he'elem davar. How do you know? “Haza'ah al haparochet ketiv behu, aval bein habadim lo khetiv” (Sprinkling on the curtain is written about them, but not between the poles). Right, you don’t go between the poles; that’s only Yom Kippur. “Vehizah be'etzba'o al pnei hakaporet” (He shall sprinkle with his finger upon the face of the cover). No, fantastic, continue! The first tanna says it’s essential, as written in the chapter Beit Shamai: “Ukh'asher asah, ka'asher asah” (As he did, so he shall do). We compare them. We did that famous derashah; we spent the whole page on it. “Ka'asher, ka'asher”—we compared the par he'elem davar shel tzibbur with the par Kohen Mashiach, elu va'elu.
“Use'ir Yom HaKippurim, kulam nisrafim al Beit Hadeshen, makom shemotzi'in sham et hadeshen shel mizbe'ach hachitzon” (The goat of the Day of Atonement and all these are burned at the ash place, where the ashes of the outer altar are taken). Every so often they had to clean out the mizbe'ach. Where did they put the ashes from the mizbe'ach? They had a special place called Beit Hadeshen. That’s where they burned these items. “Vehotzi et hadeshen el michutz lamachaneh, uvaparim hanisrafim ketiv al shefech hadeshen” (He shall take the ashes outside the camp; concerning the burned bulls it says, at the ash heap). El shefech hadeshen: the place where they put the ashes.
“Use'ir Yom HaKippurim hekisho lefar he'elem kede'ita hatam” (The goat of the Day of Atonement is compared with the communal bull, as stated there). How do you know? It’s written only about the parim hanisrafim, so how do you know about Kippur? Because Kippur is compared to the parim hanisrafim. And even though it says par Yom HaKippurim—okay. I would say par. We looked at that in the last perek: what par? The par of Yom HaKippurim. It teaches where you burn it. That’s the whole review; all of that is there.
Going back to Rashi: isn’t it automatic that wherever you perform shechitah, you’re going to do kabalah (receiving the blood)? It would be very hard to do it in a different place. So what’s the chiddush that it says it? It’s almost a chiddush that it has to say, “vekibul daman bichli sharet batzafon.” It seems redundant. Rashi is asking—All right, I’ll explain why it says it in one place, but it seems—Unless you could receive the blood in an ordinary vessel and then pour it into a kli sharet in another place. But why would that be? You could say he’s at the border. Simply, you could say the kohen is standing outside, and what—you could say that. We said that with the metzora (person afflicted with tzara'at), exactly, standing in Nikanor (Nicanor Gate). Right. A long knife. Long knife, exactly, another long one. Habet? Like Rava bar Mazuz? Habet, right. Well, he’s SCA, I mean, I get that. I’ll get video on it tomorrow. Let’s see if they know, sir. A bit in Yiddish, right? A bit in Yiddish. In other words, we mean a bit in Yiddish. And they are mishnayot, though. Yeah, the mishnayot—it’s okay, it’s not a Gemara. No, they say it. That they do; you have to give them credit for what they do.
He says here, David, “Limshatenu huzkar keli sharet bekabalat hadam bilvad,” meaning the service vessel was mentioned only for receiving the blood, not for the shechitah. Maybe shechitah needs a kli sharet—a knife? Rabbi Efrayim in Tosafot (Tosafist commentary) learns from this that the sakin used for shechitah does not have to be a kli sharet. Nice! It could be an ordinary kitchen knife. Tosafot, in the name of Rabenu Efrayim (Rabbi Ephraim), brings additional proofs. But Tosafot, in the name of Rabenu Peretz (Rabbi Peretz), rejects those arguments and brings a proof that the sakin has to be a kli sharet. That’s a whole question in Tosafot: does the sakin have to be one?
Rashi says similarly in Sotah (Tractate Sotah), daf yud-daled. Why does the Mishnah mention a kli sharet specifically for receiving the blood? If even the sakin has to be a kli sharet, why mention it with receiving the blood? Tosafot write that it’s because the tanna needed to mention the vessel to say that the vessel also has to be in the tzafon (north). The blood can’t trickle into a vessel that is positioned so that the vessel is in the tzafon but all or most of it is in the darom (south). Because he mentions the vessel, he says it is a kli sharet. You have to mention the vessel because it has to be in the tzafon, as we just said. It’s like putting a funnel over the border: I put it in the darom and somehow the blood gets in there.
They also give another reason for mentioning the vessel: in the case of the asham metzora, we said there is a rule to receive its blood in the kohen’s actual palm. Ah, because sometimes they received the blood in the hands. Right, the metzora’s blood was received in the hands. Therefore, we have to tell you that here it’s in a kli, unlike in the case of a metzora. That’s okay. Fine. Continue with the Gemara.
The Gemara says: “Venitni nami vekibul daman bichlei sharet batzafon” (Let us also teach that their blood is received in a service vessel in the north). The first line says, “kodshei kodashim shechitatan batzafon,” so it should also tell me kibul daman bichli sharet batzafon. “Keivan de'ika asham metzora dekibul damo beyado” (Since there is the metzora’s guilt offering, whose blood is received in his hand), you can’t give a general rule. Shayreih (he left it out), because we don’t want to get involved now in this whole—Isn’t it also not slaughtered in the south at all? It says shechitatan batzafon. No, sorry, batzafon, because if he’s outside—right, I mean, it’s kodshei kodashim. He makes it—the kohen will do the shechitah. In the—Okay. The kohen will do it, not the metzora. Right.
But by the asham metzora, there’s no rule to receive the blood in a kli sharet? You’re telling me he puts it in his hands? “Veha katani lekaman” (But it is taught later): asham metzora shechitatan batzafon vekibul daman bichlei sharet batzafon (For the metzora’s guilt offering, slaughter and blood reception in a service vessel are in the north). So what do you see? Even by the metzora, it was done in a kli sharet. So everything is in a kli sharet. Why didn’t it say, for kodshei kodashim, that it’s in a kli sharet?
“Me'ikara savar kibul damo beyado” (At first he thought its blood was received by hand). At the beginning of the perek, when we talk about kodshei kodashim, the tanna thought that the kibul daman of the asham metzora was done by hand. So he left it out. Then, as he proceeded through the perek, “vekeivan dela sagi leih ela bekeli” (Since it cannot be done without a vessel)—since the asham metzora requires a kli, it isn’t enough to receive it by hand; you also need to receive it in a kli afterward—“hadar tanyeih” (he taught it again).
“Detanya” (as it is taught): “Velakach hakohen midam ha'asham” (The priest shall take from the blood of the guilt offering). Does “lakach” mean with his hands? “Yachol bekeli” (Might it be in a vessel)? “Talmud lomar: venatan” (The text says: and he shall place), which means “velakach venatan” (He shall take and place). It doesn’t separate between the taking and the placing. It means he took it in his hands and immediately placed it on the—on the ear. “Mah netinah be'atzmo, af lekichah be'atzmo” (Just as the placing is done by the priest himself, so is the taking). By the kohen himself.
Oh, so maybe that applies to the mizbe'ach too, the blood that goes on the mizbe'ach? Yes. “Yachol af lamizbe'ach”—might it be so for the mizbe'ach too? No. “Talmud lomar: ki kachatat ha'asham hu” (The text says: for the guilt offering is like the sin offering). Chatat and asham are the same. “Mah chatat te'unah keli” (Just as the sin offering requires a vessel), certainly for receiving its blood, “af asham ta'un keli” (so does the guilt offering require a vessel).
“Nimtzata omer” (You find that it says): the asham of the metzora has two things. “Shene kohanim mekabelim et damo, echad bayad ve'echad bikli” (Two priests receive its blood, one by hand and one in a vessel). “Zeh shekiblo bikli ba lo etzel hamizbe'ach, vezeh shekiblo bayad ba lo etzel metzora” (The one who received it in a vessel goes to the altar, and the one who received it by hand goes to the metzora). Unbelievable. That’s why the Mishnah was so perfect: kodshei kodashim, shechitaton batzafon. It doesn’t mention kibul dam, because one part of the metzora’s service is done by hand. But there’s also one part done in a kli. So you read further. You know it. That’s why the next Mishnah says, asham metzora: its slaughter and its blood reception are in a service vessel in the north. It says it there. It left it out in one place and said it in another because one is by hand and one is not. The tanna was precise.
Read the Rashi, David, read all the Rashis. “Veshiniti nami bereisha” (And I taught it also at the beginning). “De-vistam she'ar kodshei kodashim vekibul daman, kehichi detana shechitah hatam tana, asham metzora kibul damo hayah bayad, kedilfinan lekaman shemekabel tamtzito letokh kapo. Sheyareih, mishum dela pesika leh lematneih bahadi kelila deshe'ar kodashim shekol kibul daman bikli” (Since the blood of other most sacred offerings is received in a vessel, he omitted the metzora offering from that general grouping because its blood is received by hand).
Right, you can’t give a rule because the metzora is the exception. “Vecheivan dela sagi leh nami belo kabalat keli, kedilfinan lekaman shene kohanim mekabelim et damo, echad bayad ve'echad bikli” (Since it also requires reception in a vessel, as we derive that two priests receive its blood, one by hand and one in a vessel). It teaches it with the others because they are included in the general rule.
For it says concerning the asham metzora, “velakach haKohen midam ha'asham venatan al tenuch” (The priest shall take from the blood of the guilt offering and place it on the earlobe). We derive that just as the kohen places it himself, with his finger, so he takes it himself. They can’t pour it from a kli, because the verse says etzba (finger) concerning the shemen (oil), and we derive it from there. In fact, it doesn’t really say etzba concerning the blood; it says etzba concerning the oil, but we derive it from the oil to the blood.
“Yachol af lamizbe'ach, dam asham metzora hanizrak al hamizbe'ach, demarbinan lekaman bedin matan damim me'al hamizbe'ach, ve'af al gav dela gufeih ketiva” (Might this also apply to the blood of the metzora’s guilt offering that is cast on the altar, though it is not written explicitly)? Also, maybe I can throw it on with my hands. Right. “Ki kachatat ka'asham hu” (For the guilt offering is like the sin offering) is written about the asham metzora. Now, chatat has to be in a kli. “Kedin chatat din asham zeh ba'avodat Kohen” (The law of this guilt offering in the priestly service is like that of the sin offering). “Mah chatat te'unah keli bekabalat damah” (Just as a sin offering requires a vessel for receiving its blood). We derive taking from taking, because concerning chatat it says, “velakach haKohen midam hachatat” (The priest shall take from the blood of the sin offering), and at Sinai it says, “vayikach Moshe chatzi hadam vayasem ba'aganot” (Moses took half the blood and placed it in the basins). Aganot! You see that? “Af asham zeh ta'un keli, af al pi she'amarnu bo kabalah bayad” (This guilt offering also requires a vessel, although we said its blood is received by hand). Beautiful, rabbotai.
Tomorrow is another day. Tomorrow is the last one before Minchah. Tomorrow, daf at 2:30.