- rites concerning the Paschal lamb/sin offerings are specific when looking at intent (re: rites of different offerings)
- uncircumsized or ritually impure people and those who cannot physically consume it cannot eat from the Paschal lamb and thus it is disqualified, even when the Priest's intent is clear
Daf (b) extends the rabbi's question: is a Paschal lamb kosher if it is slaughtered at a different time of year for its own purpose? for a different purpose? What if it is sacrificed for both? We learn that in the last case, the different purpose is valid. But then the rabbis argue whether or not the other purpose is nullified.
We are told in a note that often the rabbis are referring to a case where the initial intent can be for one purpose but then the intent changes - a different purpose. The offerings in these cases can be designated as peace-offerings, for these are valid even when brought for a different purpose.
The rabbis continue to argue about what the Priest has said - what is his intent? And thus if he intends to sacrifice on behalf of two groups, for example those who can and those who cannot eat the Paschal lamb, is the offering disqualified? And what if the lamb changes owners - might that disqualify the offering?
Steinsaltz again explains in a note about the traditions regarding consuming the Paschal lamb. Apparently a person can register - pay - to be with one group of people who will all partake of the Paschal lamb together. And then, if s/he wishes, that same person can change groups. If one member of the group cannot partake of the mitzvah, the offering is valid. Further, all members of a given family within a group will partake of the Paschal lamb.
The rabbis continue to look at intention. I have found that intention is not always the most important factor in Jewish practice; it is not necessary to believe at all times, but the mitzvot - the obligations - are required. Why is intent so important in this context? Perhaps we are not looking at intent as something internal but as something primarily public, a statement of intention or designation.
The rabbis continue to argue about what the Priest has said - what is his intent? And thus if he intends to sacrifice on behalf of two groups, for example those who can and those who cannot eat the Paschal lamb, is the offering disqualified? And what if the lamb changes owners - might that disqualify the offering?
Steinsaltz again explains in a note about the traditions regarding consuming the Paschal lamb. Apparently a person can register - pay - to be with one group of people who will all partake of the Paschal lamb together. And then, if s/he wishes, that same person can change groups. If one member of the group cannot partake of the mitzvah, the offering is valid. Further, all members of a given family within a group will partake of the Paschal lamb.
The rabbis continue to look at intention. I have found that intention is not always the most important factor in Jewish practice; it is not necessary to believe at all times, but the mitzvot - the obligations - are required. Why is intent so important in this context? Perhaps we are not looking at intent as something internal but as something primarily public, a statement of intention or designation.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment