Study Zevachim folio 36B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
the slaughterer would be liable to receive lashes?
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: R' Yehuda says: One might have thought that with regard to a sin offering that one slaughtered in the south, he would be liable for it. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall not sacrifice to YHWH your God an ox, or a sheep, that has a blemish, even any evil thin
§ R' Abba says: Although R' Yehuda says that an offering is rendered not valid if it was slaughtered with the intent that its blood would be left over until the next day, R' Yehuda concedes that if the priest subsequently collected, conveyed, or presented the blood with the intent to sacrifice or p
Rava says: Know that this is so, as intent to sprinkle the blood the next day, which renders an offering piggul and which inherently includes the intent to leave the blood over until the next day so that he can then sprinkle it, is nothing before the sprinkling of the blood. And his intent during th
The Talmud rejects Rava’s proof: But it is not so that this is a valid proof, as there, with regard to standard piggul intent, it is one intent that is established with the sprinkling of the blood. By contrast, here, where he initially had intent to leave the blood until the next day and subsequen