Zevachim Daf 41 זבחים דַף 41

On the previous Daf, Rebbe Yishmael said that the first mention of "לפר" written in the pesukim of פר העלם דבר alludes to פר העלם דבר של ציבור. The Gemara objects that this section is explicitly discussing פר העלם דבר של ציבור, so why would the Torah need to allude to it? Rav Pappa answers that the case of פר העלם דבר is coming to teach that the law of יותרת ושתי כליות – the diaphragm and two kidneys being burned on the מזבח should also apply to שעירי עבודת כוכבים. This law is not written explicitly by פר העלם דבר itself (but is derived from פר כהן משיח with a היקש). Therefore, the Torah writes "לפר" so that it is כמאן דכתיב ביה בגופיה – as if it is written explicitly in the section of פר העלם דבר itself, in order that it should not be a situation of דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש – something learned through a hekesh which in turn teaches that law elsewhere through another hekesh, which is not a legitimate exposition regarding קדשים.

A Baraisa of Rebbe Yishmael’s yeshivah asks: why are the יותרת and שתי כליות explicitly taught to be burned on the מזבח in the pesukim about פר כהן משיח, but are not taught in the pesukim about פר העלם דבר? It answers that it is analogous to מלך בשר ודם שזעם על אוהבו – a flesh-and-blood king who became infuriated at his dear friend, ומיעט בסרחונו מפני חיבתו – but minimized his wrongdoing because of his love for him. Similarly, the section about Klal Yisroel’s sins, פר העלם דבר, is written briefly, because of Hashem’s great love for Klal Yisroel. Another Baraisa asks why the term "פרוכת הקדש" – the “holy” Paroches is written regarding פר כהן משיח, but not regarding פר העלם דבר (where it merely says "פרוכת"). It answers that it is analogous to a human king שסרחה עליו מדינה – whose country acted offensively against him. אם מיעוטה סרחה – If only a minority of [the country] acted offensively, פמליא שלו מתקיימת – his close council still stands; if a majority sins, then his council is disrupted, because he partially removes himself from them. Similarly, when discussing a sin of a majority of the nation, the פרוכת is not described as “holy.”

A Mishnah states that if one has a פיגול intent while burning the קומץ of a minchah, but not while burning its לבונה, Rebbe Meir says the minchah is full פיגול and obligates כרת, but the Chochomim say there is no kares עד שיפגל בכל המתיר – unless he has פיגול intent for the entire “permitter.” Since he only had פיגול intent for one of the two essential components which are מתיר the minchah, it is not פיגול. Reish Lakish explains that Rebbe Meir’s reasoning is not because he holds מפגלין בחצי מתיר – one can effect פיגול even with intent during part of a מתיר. Rather, the case is where he placed the קומץ on the מזבח with פיגול intent, and then placed the לבונה silently, without specific intent. Therefore, Rebbe Meir holds כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה – whoever does several acts does them all according to his first intent. Since his first act was done with פיגול intent, the others are considered to be with פיגול intent as well, unless he specifically intended otherwise. Reish Lakish infers this position from the Mishnah on Daf 36b, but the Gemara deflects this inference. His position is challenged on the next Daf.