Sacrifices Page IV – body wastes.

First sub-chapter deals with the victim was sacrificed not for its own sake. Although it is not mentioned explicitly, it is clear that underlie the Mishnah is the assumption that initially all have to sacrifice a victim to his name. Talmud page d’originally engaged in this basic law, which requires sacrificing the victims for its own sake.

During the hearing, in the Talmud between religious change, ie, to sacrifice another victim (up to lifetime), and the changing leaves, namely the sacrifice of one man’s sacrifice for another person (for burnt burnt Simon Reuben.) Explaining the distinction between the two changes, the Gemara states four criteria, especially:

“What a change since the holy body unacceptable.”

That is, when one victim sacrificed to a totally different victim, can be seen as wrong “body.”

Simple understanding of the expression “wrong body” is wrong when it comes to inform the victim himself. For example, the first victim mutilation strike sacrifice his body. In addition, an impurity leads to the meat after slaughter wrong with the body of the victim. Now, innovation Svsogyitino is, that the waste does not involve physical contact with the victim’s body, can be seen wrong body. Gemara Vsogyitino puts unique religious setting this situation:

“… Because the mere thought Daahsbah rejected.”

On the one hand, it is the mere thought, namely the abstract interest. On the other hand, thought that there is a power rule, to the wrong body. Possible, on this background to explain the decision has Maimonides (Laws of sculptural Ahmukedshin, chapter eighteen Laws A – B):

“Every computer that is not true temples of thought, it goes without saying since he will not be considered. Hearsay learned that not even Dean endowments lost in thought, since it imposes a similar defect temples.”

Stigmas physical mutilation is not, however, is equivalent to imposing a defect, and leads to disqualify the body.

As stated above, Sugyitino raises the issue wrong body to explain the distinction between religious change and changing leaves. Conclusion, the Talmud states that this criterion is irrelevant, and distinguish, in this context, the religious change and changing leaves.

Rather, a fundamental question arises here. If a change in theoretical thinking too sacred or owner rejects the victim’s body, which excluded them no wrong body? Each victim may be disqualified because of actual physical wrong, or of the wrong thought, but finally, those who are a “waste of his body!

Add Vsogyitino (d:, DH thought) discussed this question, given the parallel issue in Tractate Pesachim (grandparents). The conclusion of add-ons is that while thinking may be wrong in the body, but needs to distinguish between different thoughts. Slightly distorted version of additions (see Method grouped as a signal, and hygiene “holy sheep” (C”ak) Type II.), but their words seem to explain this: the victim is the focus of violation. to fulfill the atonement, we need a clear definition of the identity of the owner Matachfr atoning sacrifice and identity. impairment in either of these fundamental factors, rule out the victim’s body. There are other thoughts that might disqualify different victims, but these thoughts lateral matters, and atonement itself.

We learn, according to the extras, that wrong is wrong victim’s body atoning power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rabbi Avihud Schwartz