Zevachim 47

Hook

Every founder knows the rush: product-market fit is within grasp, growth is accelerating, and the next funding round beckons. But amidst the relentless sprint, a nagging question often whispers in the back of the mind, a question rarely voiced in boardrooms but deeply felt in the quiet moments of reflection: "Are we truly building something of lasting value, or just chasing metrics? Is our hustle aligned with our higher purpose, or are we just going through the motions, hoping nobody notices the ethical compromises beneath the surface?" This isn't about mere compliance; it's about integrity, about the soul of the enterprise. It's about the difference between building a sandcastle that washes away with the tide and forging an enduring legacy.

Consider the startup that rockets to unicorn status, lauded for its innovative tech, yet later crumbles under the weight of ethical scandals – perhaps questionable data practices, a toxic internal culture, or a business model that, at its core, exploits vulnerabilities rather than truly serving a need. On the other hand, there are companies that, despite facing similar pressures, maintain a clear moral compass, leading to resilient growth and genuine impact. The distinction often lies not just in what they do, but in how and why they do it – the underlying intention that permeates every action. This dilemma, far from being a soft, philosophical musing, is a brutal strategic question with tangible ROI implications. Misaligned intent, even when cloaked in perfect execution, is a ticking time bomb, leading to customer churn, employee disillusionment, regulatory backlash, and ultimately, a destroyed reputation and enterprise value.

This week’s deep-dive into Zevachim 47 cuts through the fluff, offering ancient wisdom that speaks directly to this modern founder's angst. It grapples with the profound power of intention (kavanah), the complexities of distributed responsibility, and the non-negotiable demand for precision in critical operations. The text forces us to confront whether our business is built on an authentic, purpose-driven foundation, or if we're unwittingly creating piggul – an offering that, despite appearing correct, is rendered utterly worthless by a flawed intention. This isn't about abstract piety; it's about the hard-nosed truth of what makes a business truly succeed or irrevocably fail.

Text Snapshot

The Gemara in Zevachim 47 explores the intricate laws surrounding sacrificial offerings, focusing heavily on the concept of kavanah (intention) and the meticulous execution of rites. It opens by establishing the fundamental requirement for purposeful action: "From where is it derived... that the offering is disqualified? Rav Huna said to Shmuel: It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), teaching that the mitzva is not performed properly unless the slaughter is for the sake of a young bull, i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter." This principle is reinforced by a further verse: "“With your will you shall slaughter it” (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., with your full awareness you shall slaughter it, in the form of a purposeful action."

The discussion then pivots to the fascinating question of whose intention matters, especially when action and intent are separated. The Mishna initially states, "Because the intent follows only the one performing the sacrificial rite." However, this is challenged by Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, who asserts, "I heard that even the owner of an offering can render it piggul through improper intention." Abaye further generalizes this, saying, "this one has intention and that one performs the service, it is the intention that is relevant," citing examples where a gentile's intent invalidates a Jew's action (Rabbi Eliezer) or a storer's intent makes a carrier liable on Shabbat (Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar).

Finally, the text delves into the rigorous specifics of execution, noting, "What is the location of the slaughtering and consumption of offerings? The principle is that with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard... failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering." Yet, it also reveals a crucial nuance for specific cases: "In the case of a leper’s guilt offering, two priests collect its blood; one collects the blood by hand, and the other one collects the blood in a vessel." These passages together paint a vivid picture of an ethical framework demanding both profound internal purpose and meticulous external precision, even when navigating complex, distributed responsibilities.

Analysis

The Gemara in Zevachim 47 might seem like a deep dive into archaic ritual law, far removed from the bustling world of venture capital and scaling startups. Yet, beneath the layers of sacrificial details, lies a sophisticated ethical framework that speaks directly to the core challenges founders face: how to build with integrity, ensure accountability, and operate with excellence in a competitive landscape. The text isn't merely prescribing religious rites; it's outlining fundamental principles for purposeful action, distributed responsibility, and operational precision – all critical ingredients for sustainable business success.

Insight 1: Truth – The Indispensable Power of Intent (Kavanah)

The opening dialogue of Zevachim 47 immediately establishes a bedrock principle: action without proper intention (kavanah) is fundamentally flawed. Rav Huna clarifies that an offering is disqualified "unless the slaughter is for the sake of a young bull, i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter" (Leviticus 1:5). Shmuel then presses for the source of this requirement's indispensability, to which Rav Huna responds, "“With your will you shall slaughter it” (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., with your full awareness you shall slaughter it, in the form of a purposeful action." This isn't just about going through the motions; it's about the internal state that imbues the action with meaning and validity. In the context of business, this is a profound statement about the absolute necessity of purposeful, intentional engagement.

Consider the concept of piggul (improper intention) that permeates these discussions. Piggul isn't a mere mistake in execution; it's a corrupting intention that renders an otherwise perfectly executed act utterly worthless, even abhorrent. The meat of a piggul offering, though ritually slaughtered and prepared, becomes forbidden and carries a severe penalty for consumption. This is a powerful metaphor for the business world: a product developed with brilliant engineering, a service delivered with impeccable efficiency, or a marketing campaign executed with precision, can all become piggul if the underlying intent is misaligned, manipulative, or disingenuous. If the core purpose is not genuinely "for the sake of the customer," "for the sake of the mission," or "for the sake of creating true value," then even outwardly successful actions can be ethically hollow and ultimately unsustainable. This misalignment is a truth bomb for founders: are you building for the sake of solving a real problem, or for the sake of the next valuation round, regardless of the true impact?

The implications for business are vast. Think about "truth in advertising" or "truth in product design." A company might claim to be customer-centric, but if its internal metrics, incentives, and leadership decisions are solely focused on extracting maximum value from users without genuine reciprocity, its stated purpose is a lie. The actions might appear correct – customer support lines are open, features are released – but the kavanah is distorted. This leads to user mistrust, churn, and eventually, reputational damage that no amount of slick marketing can fix. Similarly, in organizational culture, employees can "go through the motions" – checking off tasks, attending meetings – but without a clear, shared, and genuine kavanah for the company's mission, their work becomes rote, lacking passion, innovation, and true ownership. The "output" might be there, but the value is diminished, like a piggul offering.

This spiritual demand for kavanah translates into a hard-nosed, ROI-driven imperative. Companies with a clear, authentic, and deeply embedded purpose – where every action is genuinely "for the sake of" that purpose – enjoy higher employee engagement, greater customer loyalty, and a stronger brand. They attract top talent who are motivated by more than just a paycheck. They build products that truly solve problems, leading to organic growth and resilience. Conversely, companies whose kavanah is muddled or self-serving often face internal strife, external skepticism, and a higher risk of ethical breaches that can quickly unravel years of growth. The Gemara teaches us that without sincere intention, even perfect execution is ultimately worthless, a truth that applies equally to sacred rites and startup ventures.

KPI Proxy: "Purpose Alignment Score." This could be an internal metric derived from anonymous employee surveys asking: 1) "How clearly do you understand the core purpose/mission of your current project/task?" and 2) "How aligned do you feel your personal values and efforts are with the company's stated mission?" A low score indicates a kavanah crisis, where actions are being performed "unawares" or without genuine purpose, signaling potential piggul in the making. Another proxy could be "Customer Value Realization Rate," measured by surveying customers on how well the product/service met its stated purpose for them, rather than just functionality, indicating if the initial kavanah translated to external value.

Insight 2: Fairness – Distributed Accountability, Shared Intent

The text then plunges into a crucial ethical and organizational challenge: whose intention truly matters when multiple parties are involved? The Mishna initially asserts, "Because the intent follows only the one performing the sacrificial rite." This suggests a clear line of accountability: the person doing the job is responsible for their intent. However, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, profoundly challenges this, stating, "I heard that even the owner of an offering can render it piggul through improper intention." He cites the verse, "“Then he who sacrifices shall sacrifice his offering to the Lord” (Numbers 15:4)," arguing that "he who sacrifices" refers to the owner, implying the owner's intention holds weight, even if the priest performs the physical act. This introduces the concept of distributed accountability and the pervasive influence of the principal's (owner's/founder's) intent.

This discussion directly addresses the "principal-agent problem" in business, where the interests of the owner (principal, e.g., founder/shareholders) may diverge from the interests or actions of the employee (agent, e.g., CEO, team member). Rabbi Elazar's position is radical: the founder's hidden agenda, unstated desires, or even latent improper intentions can corrupt the entire enterprise, even if the employees are diligently following instructions. Imagine a founder who launches a company with the stated mission of "democratizing access to information," but whose secret kavanah is simply to build a monopoly and extract maximum rent. Even if employees execute flawlessly on the stated mission, the underlying piggul of the founder's intent can poison the well, leading to unfair market practices, ethical compromises, and ultimately, a breakdown of trust with users and regulators. The owner's initial intention, like a hidden virus, can silently corrupt the output of the most dedicated team.

Abaye takes this concept even further, stating, "this one has intention and that one performs the service, it is the intention that is relevant." He provides examples that extend beyond the owner-performer dynamic. Rabbi Eliezer, for instance, "deems it unfit" if a Jew slaughters an animal on behalf of a gentile whose intention is idol worship. Here, an external stakeholder's (the gentile's) intent can invalidate the performer's (the Jew's) otherwise valid action. This is a critical insight for supply chain ethics and partnerships. A company might have impeccable internal ethical standards, but if it sources materials from a supplier engaged in exploitative labor practices, or partners with a distributor known for deceptive marketing, the kavanah of those external parties can implicitly corrupt the company's own offerings. The "product" delivered to the customer, even if technically sound, becomes ethically piggul due to the distributed, misaligned intent in its creation or delivery chain. Fairness, in this context, demands that we extend our ethical scrutiny beyond our immediate control to the entire ecosystem in which we operate.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's principle regarding Shabbat further illustrates this: "In the case of any item that is not fit to be stored... but it was deemed fit... by this person and he stored it, and another person came and carried out on Shabbat the item that was stored, that one who carried it out is rendered liable by the thought of this one who stored it." Here, the "thought" or kavanah of the storer (the one who prepared the item with a certain intent) dictates the liability of the carrier (the one performing the action). This is akin to product design and user liability. A software engineer might build a tool, but the intent of the product manager or the founder in how that tool is designed to be used can imbue the user's action with ethical implications. If a platform is intentionally designed to be addictive, or to subtly manipulate user behavior (e.g., dark patterns), the "thought" of the designer or founder can make the user's engagement, even if seemingly voluntary, an ethically compromised act. Fairness demands accountability for the intended use and intended impact of our creations, not just their technical functionality.

The Gemara's nuanced debate about whether these sages agree across all domains (Temple, Shabbat, idolatry) underscores the complexity of distributed intent. It suggests that while the principle of intent's pervasive power is strong, its application might vary based on the context and severity of the ethical stakes. For founders, this means understanding that accountability isn't a simple, linear chain. It's a complex web where the kavanah of founders, employees, partners, and even customers (in how a product is designed to be used) all contribute to the ethical integrity and ultimate validity of the business's "offering." Ensuring fairness requires cultivating a shared kavanah across the entire ecosystem and rigorously vetting the intentions of all stakeholders.

Insight 3: Competition – Precision, Process, and the Power of Specificity

Beyond intention, Zevachim 47 also provides a masterclass in operational excellence and strategic precision. The Mishna meticulously details the "location of the slaughtering and consumption of offerings," emphasizing that "offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard... failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering." This is not just religious ritual; it's a stark, ROI-minded directive: precision is non-negotiable. Missing even "one placement" – a single, seemingly minor step – renders the entire, costly, and resource-intensive offering utterly worthless. This is the ultimate "no fluff" statement about quality control and process adherence.

In the competitive business landscape, this translates directly to operational excellence. Companies that consistently deliver high-quality products or services, adhering to precise standards, gain a significant competitive edge. Think of lean manufacturing principles, Six Sigma methodologies, or the rigorous quality control of a company like Apple. Every step, from design to production to customer support, has critical "placements" that, if missed, can disqualify the entire value proposition in the eyes of the customer or market. A single bug in a critical software update, a lapse in data security, or a poorly executed customer onboarding can invalidate months or years of effort, leading to customer churn, negative reviews, and a damaged brand reputation. The Mishna's lesson is clear: identify your critical path, define your "placements," and execute with uncompromising precision, because the cost of failure in a single step can be total disqualification.

However, the Gemara doesn't stop at rigid adherence. It introduces a crucial nuance with the case of "a leper’s guilt offering." While most offerings require blood collection in a service vessel, the leper's offering necessitates a dual approach: "two priests collect its blood; one collects the blood by hand, and the other one collects the blood in a vessel." This isn't a relaxation of standards; it's an example of adaptive precision. For a specific, unique case (the leper's unique purification ritual), the standard process is modified, requiring specialized roles (two priests) and tailored procedures (hand collection for the leper, vessel collection for the altar). This demonstrates that true operational excellence isn't just about rigid adherence to a single process, but about the capability to design and execute different, equally precise processes for different needs.

This ability to handle exceptions with specialized, precise processes is a powerful competitive differentiator. Many companies struggle with edge cases, either forcing them into a rigid, unsuitable general process (leading to customer dissatisfaction) or abandoning precision altogether (leading to chaos). The leper's offering teaches us that customization and specialized service don't mean sacrificing quality; they mean designing bespoke precision. Imagine a SaaS company that offers a highly standardized onboarding process for most users but has a dedicated, specialized team and process for enterprise clients requiring complex integrations. Or a biotech firm with a standardized drug development pipeline that also maintains a specific, highly regulated process for "orphan drugs" targeting rare diseases. These companies can compete effectively across different market segments because they understand that while the goal is always precision, the method can and must adapt to specific, legitimate needs.

Ultimately, the text reveals that sustainable competitive advantage stems from a dual commitment: unyielding precision in the execution of critical processes, and the strategic flexibility to design and implement tailored, equally precise processes for unique requirements. It’s about knowing what's non-negotiable ("failure to perform even one placement... disqualifies") and understanding when to create a specialized, parallel track ("two priests collect its blood; one by hand, and the other one in a vessel"). This rigorous approach to operational design and execution ensures that a business's "offering" is always valid, relevant, and consistently high-quality, whether it's serving the general market or a niche segment.

Policy Move

Policy Name: The "Kavanah & Critical Path" (KCP) Protocol for New Initiatives

To operationalize the insights from Zevachim 47, specifically the indispensable power of intent, distributed accountability, and the necessity of precision, we will implement a mandatory "Kavanah & Critical Path" (KCP) Protocol for all new product features, significant project initiatives, and market expansion strategies exceeding a predefined resource threshold (e.g., $50,000 budget or 500 person-hours). This protocol is designed to eliminate piggul (ethically corrupted offerings) at its root and ensure that our actions are always "for the sake of the young bull" – truly aligned with our core mission and designed for maximum, sustained value.

Process Outline:

1. Intent Statement (Kavanah Document): Before any significant resources are allocated (pre-discovery/design phase), the project lead (the "owner" in the Gemara's parlance) must draft a concise yet comprehensive "Intent Statement." This document, no more than two pages, must explicitly articulate:

   • Core Purpose: Why are we undertaking this initiative? What specific problem are we solving, or what genuine value are we creating for our target users/customers? This goes beyond superficial benefits to the underlying ethical rationale. (Directly addresses "for the sake of a young bull" – what is the true "sake"?)
   • Stakeholder Value Proposition: How does this initiative create measurable, positive value for all key stakeholders – customers, employees, shareholders, and the broader community? What are the potential negative externalities, and how will they be mitigated? (Addresses distributed accountability – considering the impact of our intent on others).
   • Alignment with Company Values: How does this initiative directly embody our stated company values (e.g., integrity, innovation, user-centricity, sustainability)? If there are potential tensions, how will they be resolved?
   • Ethical Guardrails: What are the non-negotiable ethical boundaries for this project? What actions, if contemplated, would render this "piggul" and immediately disqualify it? (e.g., data exploitation, deceptive practices, non-inclusive design).

2. Critical Path Mapping (Precision Blueprint): Concurrently with the Intent Statement, the project lead and primary executors (the "performers") must develop a "Critical Path Map" detailing the essential operational steps required for successful and ethical delivery. This map will:

   • Identify "Disqualifying Placements": Pinpoint the 3-5 absolute "must-do-right" steps or decisions that, if executed incorrectly or omitted, would fundamentally invalidate the entire initiative's value or ethical standing (e.g., specific data privacy compliance, core product functionality, key security protocols). These are the "one placement[s]" whose failure "disqualifies the offering."
   • Define Success Metrics for Critical Placements: For each identified "disqualifying placement," establish clear, measurable success metrics and a responsible owner.
   • Outline Exception Handling (Leper's Guilt Offering Clause): If the initiative addresses a niche or specialized user group, or requires significant deviation from standard operating procedures, this section must explicitly outline the tailored, equally precise process for these exceptions, including dedicated resources or specialized teams. This demonstrates our ability to offer "bespoke precision" for unique needs without compromising standards.

3. Cross-Functional Review & "Piggul" Veto: Both the Intent Statement and Critical Path Map must be reviewed and approved by a "KCP Review Board" composed of representatives from Product, Engineering, Legal, Ethics/Compliance, and a senior executive sponsor.

   • This board's primary function is not just to approve, but to actively challenge the stated intent and identified critical path. They are empowered to ask the hard questions: "Is this truly 'for the sake of' the customer, or for short-term gain?" "Are we genuinely considering all stakeholders' intentions?" "Is this 'placement' truly critical, and is our plan for precision robust enough?"
   • Crucially, any member of the KCP Review Board can issue a "Piggul Veto" if they believe the core intent is fundamentally misaligned, or if the critical path is so flawed as to render the initiative ethically untenable or operationally doomed, regardless of superficial execution. This veto requires a written justification, and the project cannot proceed until the core issues are resolved and re-approved. This empowers individuals across the organization to uphold shared intent and prevent the creation of ethically compromised "offerings."

Implementation Details:

• Training: All project leads, KCP Review Board members, and senior management will undergo mandatory training on the principles of kavanah, distributed intent, precision, and the specific application of the KCP Protocol.
• Tools: Integrate KCP document creation and review into existing project management software (e.g., Jira, Asana) with required fields and automated workflow for review and approval.
• Reporting: Aggregate data on KCP protocol adherence, "Piggul Veto" instances, and critical path success rates will be regularly reported to the executive team and board.

This KCP Protocol ensures that our business doesn't just do things but does the right things, for the right reasons, with the right precision, aligning our entrepreneurial drive with enduring ethical principles, and safeguarding our long-term enterprise value.

Board-Level Question

"Given our rapid scaling and the increasing complexity of our product ecosystem and supply chains, how are we proactively auditing the intent behind our key product development and market expansion strategies, ensuring that our foundational purpose isn't diluted by execution, and that we are designing for nuanced customer needs rather than just general market trends, thereby mitigating the risk of creating 'piggul' offerings?"

This question is designed to provoke a strategic discussion that encompasses all three core insights from Zevachim 47:

1. Auditing Intent (Truth): It directly challenges the board to consider if the kavanah (core purpose and ethical foundation) of the company's initiatives is being genuinely upheld or if it's being eroded by the pressures of growth and execution. It asks for proactive measures beyond mere compliance, demanding an internal truth-check on whether actions are truly "for the sake of" the intended value.
2. Foundational Purpose Dilution (Fairness/Distributed Accountability): It addresses the risk of the founder's/leadership's original intent being lost or corrupted as it's passed down through layers of management and execution, or as external partners become involved. This speaks to the concept of distributed responsibility – ensuring that the ethical intent of the "owner" permeates the actions of all "performers" and stakeholders, preventing the creation of piggul through misaligned intent across the organization and its ecosystem.
3. Designing for Nuanced Needs vs. General Trends (Competition/Precision): It pushes the board to evaluate whether the company's operational precision extends to handling specific, complex customer segments or market conditions with tailored, high-quality solutions, or if it's defaulting to a one-size-fits-all approach that might disqualify it from truly serving specific needs. This brings in the lesson of the leper's guilt offering, emphasizing adaptive precision as a competitive advantage.

By asking this question, the board is forced to move beyond superficial metrics and delve into the ethical and operational underpinnings that dictate long-term value, brand integrity, and competitive differentiation in an increasingly scrutinized market. It’s an ROI-minded question because the failure to address these points can lead to catastrophic ethical failures, regulatory penalties, customer exodus, and ultimately, the destruction of enterprise value.

Takeaway + Citations

The ancient wisdom embedded in Zevachim 47 offers a remarkably sharp, ROI-minded ethical framework for the modern founder. It strips away the romantic notions of entrepreneurship and replaces them with a demanding, yet ultimately empowering, mandate for integrity. The text unequivocally declares that intention is not a soft skill; it is the absolute prerequisite for validity. Just as an offering, however perfectly executed, is rendered piggul – utterly worthless and even abhorrent – by a flawed kavanah, so too can a brilliant product or service be corrupted and ultimately fail if its underlying purpose is misaligned, manipulative, or disingenuous. This is the hard truth: without genuine purpose ("for the sake of a young bull"), even perfect execution is a waste of resources, a ticking time bomb of ethical compromise.

Furthermore, Zevachim 47 illuminates the complex reality of distributed accountability, reminding us that ethical responsibility doesn't neatly reside with a single actor. The founder's vision, the employee's execution, the partner's practices, and even the user's intended interaction can all contribute to the ethical integrity – or piggul – of an enterprise. This demands a holistic approach to ethics, extending scrutiny beyond internal operations to the entire stakeholder ecosystem. Finally, the Gemara provides a blueprint for operational excellence that embraces both rigorous precision and strategic adaptability. It mandates uncompromising adherence to critical processes ("failure to perform even one placement... disqualifies") while simultaneously demonstrating the power of designing bespoke, equally precise solutions for unique needs ("two priests collect its blood; one by hand, and the other one in a vessel").

For the founder looking to build an enduring legacy, not just a fleeting valuation, the message is clear: cultivate an unshakeable kavanah rooted in genuine value creation, foster an environment of shared ethical intent across your organization and partners, and relentlessly pursue operational precision, knowing when to standardize and when to customize. These aren't abstract moralizing; they are the fundamental building blocks for resilience, trust, and sustainable competitive advantage in a world desperately craving authentic leadership. Ignoring these principles is not just an ethical lapse; it's a strategic blunder of the highest order.

Citations:

• Leviticus 1:5: "And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord."

  • Sefaria permalink: https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.1.5?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en

• Leviticus 19:5: "With your will you shall slaughter it."

  • Sefaria permalink: https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.19.5?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en

• Numbers 15:4: "Then he who sacrifices shall sacrifice his offering to the Lord."

  • Sefaria permalink: https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.15.4?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en

• Zevachim 47b: Discussions on kavanah, piggul, distributed intent, specific locations for offerings, and the leper's guilt offering.

  • Sefaria permalink for the entire page: https://www.sefaria.org/Zevachim.47b?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
  • Specific lines within Zevachim 47 that were quoted or paraphrased:
    • "From where is it derived... that the offering is disqualified? Rav Huna said to Shmuel: It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), teaching that the mitzva is not performed properly unless the slaughter is for the sake of a young bull, i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter."
    • "Shmuel said to Rav Huna: We have this as an established halakha already... from where is it derived that this requirement is indispensable? Rav Huna said to him that the verse states: “With your will you shall slaughter it” (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., with your full awareness you shall slaughter it, in the form of a purposeful action."
    • "The mishna teaches: Because the intent follows only the one performing the sacrificial rite. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: I heard that even the owner of an offering can render it piggul through improper intention. Rava says: What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei? As the verse states: “Then he who sacrifices shall sacrifice his offering to the Lord” (Numbers 15:4). The term “he who sacrifices” is a reference to the owner; since the owner is considered one who sacrifices, he too can render his offering piggul with an improper intention."
    • "Abaye says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar all hold that even in a case involving two people, where this one has intention and that one performs the service, it is the intention that is relevant, i.e., it is as though the one performing the service had the intention."
    • "The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is as we learned in a mishna (Ḥullin 38b): With regard to one who slaughters an animal on behalf of a gentile, his slaughter is valid and a Jew may eat the meat of this animal. But Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, as the intention of the gentile, which is presumably to use the animal for idol worship, invalidates the act of slaughter performed by the Jew."
    • "The statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is as we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: In the case of any item that is not fit to be stored, and therefore people do not typically store items like it, but it was deemed fit for storage by this person and he stored it, and another person came and carried out on Shabbat the item that was stored, that one who carried it out is rendered liable by the thought of this one who stored it."
    • "MISHNA: What is the location of the slaughtering and consumption of offerings? The principle is that with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard... failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering."
    • "You consequently say: In the case of a leper’s guilt offering, two priests collect its blood; one collects the blood by hand, and the other one collects the blood in a vessel."

  (Note: The Sefaria permalink for Zevachim 47b covers all these discussions. Specific line-by-line permalinks are not practical for such extensive quotes within a single Gemara page, but the main page link is provided.)