Sacrifices M. Page – wrong thinking and acceptance by injection

Mishnah opens the our issue (Iga.) says the sacrifice is rejected in four things: the slaughter, in Kabul, motion, or by injection.

Talmud made it difficult to Mishnah baraita between injection and receiving department:

Rabbi Akiva said, I interpret: it did not receive an act of thought, a shot made it an act of thought.

Raba tried to reconcile the two sources by dividing the sake of art that invalidates all D jobs and actually thought Figol rejects injection, but the Talmud has another Briita explicitly writes that calculates Figol invalidates all works of atonement;

Injection at all was, and why exhausted? Press it, to tell you: what a special shot that work (mercy seat) delays atonement, although any work delays atonement.

The conclusion of the Gemara (m:) is that part of the two ways of thought and the reception:

God who said: I am [Shochat] in order to get blood for tomorrow,
God who said: I am getting blood to spill songs tomorrow.

That is, the term “thought the reception” which recalls Abbriitut used in two different ways – thinking that software is at the slaughter receipt, and thought at the reception that software is shedding Ahshireime.

First divided into how to interpret the division of the Talmud. According to Rashi (sv There is no difficulty) and additions (I: DH Mahsbin) is in receipt Mpgalat thought, even if the thought of dumping a stove, and thought during the slaughter will get out of its time is not Mpgalat. Also simplifies the Gemara seems they said, because Mishnah expressly states Hour victim can reject the idea, and thus seems to explain the words baraita that “Bella thought it did not act” relating to the case of thought during the slaughter that software is a receipt.

Although Ra’avad commentary on the theory of priests (Leviticus handout d) a different spirit was with him:

And interpret the butcher to get disqualified for tomorrow …
But the recipient in order to shed remnants tomorrow not disqualified, Achedaktana songs spilling out of a pipe Aimoarin that Maachbin the atonement …

There is no room to stand on how to reconcile the words of the Talmud took Ra’avad with, but we try to understand the distribution of the first element.

Understanding the recent court disagreed slaughterer to throw but its time Spiegel. Basically deals with the mind set Ahfigol human eating or eating the altar (as explained Abgma ‘M:), and therefore can understand that even thought the shot Mpgalat because blood is to eat a shot of the altar (Rashi T. wrote: DH does not). Out of this course, thought the reception, with no eating of the altar, not Mpgalat, also wrote on the site Ora Foundation (DH there, receipt):

We actually eating because Dbaenne, or person, or an altar, and acceptance is not eating.

Although Ahger”ah (cited Abgree”aza M: DH seems) had resumed injection Sahfigol not thinking about eating from the altar where the “but from work, Edgiziah”ach This is Edabuda Mpgalat.” This understanding can we explain the method and say that he thought the decree Ra’avad spoken and written about shot also includes the work of Kabbalah.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rabbi Avraham Fall