Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Seder Kodashim Kit – Bookmark Order Form
Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only when the two improper thoughts occur in separate sacrificial rites, or even when they occur within the same rite. A difficulty is raised against each one. The one against Rabbi Yochanan is resolved, but the one against Ilfa is left unresolved.
A debate in Masechet Temurah 25b between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi regarding a similar situation is brought as a comparison. Abaye and Rava disagree about their understanding of the debate and whether it is similar to the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis in our Mishna.
There is a discussion about the language in the Mishna – is it referring to a case of a thought about “an olive-bulk and an olive-bulk” or “an olive-bulk, an olive-bulk.” What are the ramifications of the different versions? Which is established as the correct version, and how?
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Simchat Torah has turned into a complicated day – being both a holiday and a day of remembrance. Today’s daf is dedicated to the memory of those who were tragically murdered two years ago today. May our learning be an aliyah for their neshamot, a tribute to their lives, and a reflection of the strength and resilience of our people in the face of the unimaginable pain we have all experienced since that day.
Zevachim 30
אִין; רֵישָׁא – בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲבוֹדוֹת, סֵיפָא – בֵּין בַּעֲבוֹדָה אַחַת בֵּין בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲבוֹדוֹת.
The Gemara responds: Yes, it can be explained that the first clause is referring to two sacrificial rites, while the latter clause, i.e., the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, applies to both one rite and two rites.
תְּנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל: אִם מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן קָדְמָה לְמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״. אֶלָּא לְאִילְפָא – מַאי ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״? קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara suggests a proof: We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says that this is the principle: If the intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it. Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that the disagreement applies even to one rite, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: This is the principle, indicating that the principle is broad. But according to Ilfa, what is added by the phrase: This is the principle? The Gemara responds: This indeed poses a difficulty to the opinion of Ilfa.
תְּנַן הָתָם: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Temura 25b): If one had two animals standing before him, one a burnt offering and one a peace offering, and he said with regard to another non-sacred animal of his: This animal is hereby the substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering, then that animal is the substitute of the burnt offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אִם לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּון תְּחִילָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין; וְאִם מִשֶּׁאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה״, וְנִמְלַךְ וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה.
Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset, i.e., his intent was that this animal be the substitute of both a burnt offering and a peace offering, since it is impossible to produce two designations simultaneously and one designation must precede the other, his statement is effective, and the animal is the substitute of both a burnt offering and a peace offering. But if it was only after he said: This animal is hereby the substitute of the burnt offering, that he reconsidered and said: This animal is hereby the substitute of the peace offering, then that animal is the substitute of a burnt offering alone.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים״, מַהוּ? ״לַחֲצוֹת״, מַהוּ?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one expressed the two intentions simultaneously and said: This is hereby the substitute of a burnt offering and a peace offering, what is the halakha? Additionally, if one specified his intention to split the animal between a burnt offering and a peace offering, but mentioned the burnt offering first, what is the halakha?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּהָא וַדַּאי מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רָבָא אֲמַר: עֲדַיִין הִיא מַחְלוֹקֶת.
Abaye said: In this case, Rabbi Meir certainly concedes that both types of sanctity apply to the animal. Rava said: It is still a disagreement; Rabbi Meir still holds in this case that since he mentioned the burnt offering first, only that sanctity applies to the animal.
אָמַר רָבָא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ בְּהָא וַדַּאי מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר; הֲרֵי שְׁחִיטָה – (דלכי) [דִּכִי] ״לַחֲצוֹת״ דָּמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי!
Rava said to Abaye: According to your opinion, as you say that in this case Rabbi Meir certainly concedes, one may raise an objection from the mishna, which describes a case where one performs slaughter with intent to eat one olive-bulk of the offering beyond its time and one olive-bulk outside its area, which is comparable to a case where one says: To split, since both intentions are held during the singular act of slaughter. And nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree, and Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one attends only to the first statement, renders the animal piggul.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא לְבַסּוֹף?! יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף; וּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ – דְּאָמַר: סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, סִימָן שֵׁנִי חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ.
Abaye said to him: Do you hold that slaughter is considered to have been performed only at its end, such that it takes effect in a single instant? Actually, slaughter is accomplished progressively, from beginning to end, and our mishna is referring to a case where one says: I slaughter the first siman, the gullet or the windpipe, with intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, and the second siman with intent to consume it outside its designated area.
הֲרֵי קְמִיצָה – (דלכי) [דִּכִי] לַחֲצוֹת דָּמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי!
The Gemara asks: But what about the removal of a handful from a meal offering with intent to eat one olive-bulk beyond its time and one outside of its area, which is comparable to a case where one says: To split, since both intentions are held during the removal, and nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to it in tractate Menaḥot (12a)?
הָתָם נָמֵי – שֶׁהִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ מִנְחָה חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, קוֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ.
The Gemara responds: Since the mishna does not state such a dispute explicitly, one can say that their disagreement is not with regard to the removal of the handful but with regard to the burning of the two permitting factors of the meal offering, the handful and the frankincense. Accordingly, there too, the case is such that the priest burned the handful of the meal offering with intent to eat it beyond its designated time, and he burned the handful of frankincense with intent to eat the meal offering outside its designated area.
הֲרֵי קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא – דְּלֵיכָּא לְבוֹנָה בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וּפְלִיגִי!
The Gemara persists: But what about the handful from a meal offering of a sinner, which has no frankincense with it, and still Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree?
לָא פְּלִיגִי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי, פְּלִיגִי בִּפְסִיעוֹת.
The Gemara responds: In that case they do not disagree. Rav Ashi says: Even if you say that they disagree in that case, one may say that they disagree specifically with regard to a case where the priest had different intentions during his steps toward the altar while holding the handful. Consequently, even this rite is divisible into separate parts.
רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי כִּדְאַבָּיֵי, רַב הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן מַתְנֵי כִּדְרָבָא.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi would teach in accordance with the opinion of Abaye that in a case where one explicitly mentions both intentions at once, Rabbi Meir concedes that both sanctities apply to the animal. Rav Huna bar Natan would teach in accordance with the opinion of Rava that even in such a case, Rabbi Meir considers only the first sanctity mentioned.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אֲמַר: רַבִּי מֵאִיר – בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: When Rabbi Meir said that if one says: This animal is hereby the substitute of a burnt offering, the substitute of a peace offering, then the animal is the substitute of a burnt offering, he said this according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that in general, the halakha is to attend only to the first statement.
דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל: אִם מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן קָדְמָה אֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
As we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said that this is the principle: If the intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, וְהָא רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כִּי מַגְּעַתְּ לְהוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, לָא פְּלִיגִי!
Abaye said to Rav Dimi: But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: When you consider their opinions, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei do not disagree with one another, i.e., neither holds that one attends only to the first statement?
וְלָא פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלִיגִי בְּמַאי דִּפְלִיגִי, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי בְּמַאי דְּלָא פְּלִיגִי.
Rav Dimi objected: And is it so that they do not disagree? But don’t they disagree explicitly in the mishna cited earlier? Abaye said to him: They disagree where they disagree, i.e., that specific case, but they do not disagree where they do not disagree, i.e., the underlying principle. Accordingly, one must understand the basis of their dispute in another manner.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״תָּחוּל זוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ (אָמַר) תָּחוּל זוֹ״ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לָא חָיְילָא; ״לֹא תָּחוּל זוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה זוֹ״ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חָיְילָא;
This is as Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All, i.e., Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, concede that in a case where one says: Let this sanctity of a burnt offering take effect and afterward let that sanctity of a peace offering take effect, everyone agrees that the sanctity of a peace offering does not take effect, because the sanctity of the burnt offering took effect first. Likewise, if one said: This sanctity shall not take effect unless that sanctity applies, everyone agrees that the sanctity of a peace offering takes effect as well.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דְּאָמַר: ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים״ וַאֲמַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִיהְדָּר קָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ.
They disagree with regard to a case where one says: This animal is hereby a substitute for a burnt offering, a substitute for a peace offering. Rabbi Meir holds: Since if he wanted both sanctities to take effect, he should have said: A substitute for a burnt offering and a peace offering, but he said instead: A substitute for a burnt offering, a substitute for a peace offering, learn from his language that he originally intended for it to be a burnt offering, and he then retracted his first intention.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – אִי אֲמַר: ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא פַּלְגָא תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּפַלְגָא תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים; לְהָכִי אֲמַר: ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – לְמֵימְרָא דְּכוּלַּהּ עוֹלָה וְכוּלַּהּ שְׁלָמִים הָוְיָא.
And Rabbi Yosei holds that if he had said: A substitute for a burnt offering and a peace offering, I would say that he means that half the animal should be a substitute for a burnt offering and half a substitute for a peace offering. He therefore says: A substitute for a burnt offering, a substitute for a peace offering; that is to say that all of it is a burnt offering and all of it is a peace offering. In any event, according to this explanation, Rabbi Meir does not necessarily hold that one attends only to the first statement.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוּא אָמַר לָא פְּלִיגִי, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא פְּלִיגִי.
Rav Dimi said to Abaye: He, Rabba bar bar Ḥana, says that they do not disagree, but I say that they disagree, and Rabbi Meir holds that one attends only to the first statement, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna.
אָמַר עוּלָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אֶפְשָׁר יָדְעִין חַבְרִין בַּבְלָאָה – ״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״ תְּנַן, אוֹ ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ תְּנַן?
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna itself: Ulla said, and some say it was Rav Oshaya who said: Perhaps our colleagues, the Babylonians, know whether we learn the language of the improper intention in the mishna as: I hereby slaughter the animal with intent to consume an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or we learn: An olive-bulk beyond its designated time and an olive-bulk outside its designated area?
״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״ תְּנַן – אֲבָל ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ תְּנַן, דִּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פְּרָטָא הָוֵי – וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן ״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״?
The Gemara elaborates: Perhaps we learn: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk, and it is only in this case that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis. But if one said: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, everyone agrees that it constitutes a combination of intentions, and the animal is not rendered piggul. Or perhaps we learn: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, where according to Rabbi Yehuda each term constitutes a separate term despite the use of the conjunction: And, and he holds that one attends only to the first statement, and all the more so if one said: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ לֵוִי מֵרַבִּי: חִישֵּׁב לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ, מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: זוֹ שְׁאֵילָה! עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that dilemma which Levi raised before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If one had intent to consume an olive-bulk the next day outside its designated area, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: This is an excellent question. The answer is that even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that this constitutes a combination of intentions and that the animal is not rendered piggul.
אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי: לֹא מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ הִיא?! לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר; כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ; כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר; כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. הָא אִידַּךְ – עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי!
Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said before him: How is this an excellent question; is it not our mishna? As we learned in the mishna: If one expressed intent to eat an olive-bulk outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified and there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees only with regard to these cases; but in another case, it could easily be inferred that he concedes that it constitutes a combination of intentions.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוּא שָׁאַל בִּי דְּבַר חָכְמָה, וְאַתְּ אָמַרְתָּ מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ?! לְדִידָךְ דְּאַתְנִיתָךְ תַּרְתֵּי – לָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ;
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Levi asked me a matter of wisdom, and you say our mishna. For you, whom I taught two phrasings of the mishna, both: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk, and: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, the question is not difficult, since my omission of this other case allows you to infer its halakha.
לְדִידֵיהּ דְּלָא אַתְנִיתֵיהּ אֶלָּא חֲדָא, וְשַׁמְעִינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּקָא גָרְסִי תַּרְתֵּי – וְסָבַר: דִּידִי דַּוְוקָא, וְדִידְהוּ עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי? אוֹ דִלְמָא דִּידְהוּ דַּוְוקָא, וּלְדִידִי שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר לִי; וּמִדְּשַׁיַּיר לִי לְדִידִי הָא – שַׁיַּיר לְהוּ לְדִידְהוּ נָמֵי בְּהָךְ?
For him, whom I taught only one phrasing, and who heard the Rabbis reciting two, the question is excellent, since Levi thought: Perhaps my phrasing is exact, and their additional phrasing constitutes a combination of intentions according to all opinions. Or perhaps their phrasing is exact, and my phrasing omitted this case. And if my phrasing omitted this case, perhaps their phrasing also omitted that other case, even though it is subject to disagreement.
וְהֵי אַתְנְיֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ אַתְנְיֵיהּ – הַאי לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא! אֶלָּא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״ אַתְנְיֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And which phrasing did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teach Levi? If we say that he taught him: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, i.e., that Rabbi Yehuda still holds the terms to be distinct despite the conjunction, this is not an omission, since one can infer a fortiori that the same applies to: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk. Rather, it must be that he taught him: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk, so that it was unclear to Levi what the halakha would be if one used the conjunction: And.
וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״!
The Gemara asks: If so, why did Levi raise the dilemma with regard to the phrasing: The next day outside? Let him raise the dilemma with regard to the phrasing: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk.
סְבַר: אִיבְעֵי מִינֵּיהּ חֲדָא – דְּשָׁמַעְנָא תַּרְתֵּי. דְּאִי בָּעֵינָא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ – הָא נִיחָא אִי אָמַר לִי כְּלָלָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן ״כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ״; אֶלָּא אִי אָמַר לִי פְּרָטָא – אַכַּתִּי ״כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ״ קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי.
The Gemara responds: Levi thought: I will raise one dilemma before him so as to learn two halakhot. As, if I ask only with regard to: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, it will work out well if he says to me that Rabbi Yehuda concedes that they constitute one general term, as this would apply all the more so if one said: An olive-bulk the next day outside, which is even more unified. But if he says to me that each term constitutes a separate term according to Rabbi Yehuda, then I will still need to raise the dilemma with regard to the case of: An olive-bulk the next day outside. I will therefore inquire with regard to the latter case.
אִי הָכִי, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי – הָתִינַח אִי אָמַר לֵיהּ ״כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ״ פְּרָטָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״; אֶלָּא אִי אָמַר לֵיהּ כְּלָלָא, אַכַּתִּי ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
The Gemara challenges: If so, now too, it works out well if he says to him that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the wording: An olive-bulk the next day outside, is constituted of separate terms, as this would apply all the more so if one said: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, which is less unified. But if he says to him that it is one general term according to Rabbi Yehuda, then he will still need to raise the dilemma with regard to the case of: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk.
אִם כֵּן מִרְתָּח רָתַח:
The Gemara responds: If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi answered in this manner, i.e., that Rabbi Yehuda concedes that: An olive-bulk the next day outside, is considered one term, he would unwittingly provide the answer to the other question as well. As, if Rabbi Yehuda had also conceded with regard to: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would become angry with Levi for asking the wrong question and say:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
See video
Raanana, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
Zevachim 30
אִין; רֵישָׁא – בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲבוֹדוֹת, סֵיפָא – בֵּין בַּעֲבוֹדָה אַחַת בֵּין בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲבוֹדוֹת.
The Gemara responds: Yes, it can be explained that the first clause is referring to two sacrificial rites, while the latter clause, i.e., the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, applies to both one rite and two rites.
תְּנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל: אִם מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן קָדְמָה לְמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״. אֶלָּא לְאִילְפָא – מַאי ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״? קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara suggests a proof: We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says that this is the principle: If the intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it. Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that the disagreement applies even to one rite, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: This is the principle, indicating that the principle is broad. But according to Ilfa, what is added by the phrase: This is the principle? The Gemara responds: This indeed poses a difficulty to the opinion of Ilfa.
תְּנַן הָתָם: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Temura 25b): If one had two animals standing before him, one a burnt offering and one a peace offering, and he said with regard to another non-sacred animal of his: This animal is hereby the substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering, then that animal is the substitute of the burnt offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אִם לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּון תְּחִילָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין; וְאִם מִשֶּׁאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה״, וְנִמְלַךְ וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה.
Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset, i.e., his intent was that this animal be the substitute of both a burnt offering and a peace offering, since it is impossible to produce two designations simultaneously and one designation must precede the other, his statement is effective, and the animal is the substitute of both a burnt offering and a peace offering. But if it was only after he said: This animal is hereby the substitute of the burnt offering, that he reconsidered and said: This animal is hereby the substitute of the peace offering, then that animal is the substitute of a burnt offering alone.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים״, מַהוּ? ״לַחֲצוֹת״, מַהוּ?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one expressed the two intentions simultaneously and said: This is hereby the substitute of a burnt offering and a peace offering, what is the halakha? Additionally, if one specified his intention to split the animal between a burnt offering and a peace offering, but mentioned the burnt offering first, what is the halakha?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּהָא וַדַּאי מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רָבָא אֲמַר: עֲדַיִין הִיא מַחְלוֹקֶת.
Abaye said: In this case, Rabbi Meir certainly concedes that both types of sanctity apply to the animal. Rava said: It is still a disagreement; Rabbi Meir still holds in this case that since he mentioned the burnt offering first, only that sanctity applies to the animal.
אָמַר רָבָא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ בְּהָא וַדַּאי מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר; הֲרֵי שְׁחִיטָה – (דלכי) [דִּכִי] ״לַחֲצוֹת״ דָּמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי!
Rava said to Abaye: According to your opinion, as you say that in this case Rabbi Meir certainly concedes, one may raise an objection from the mishna, which describes a case where one performs slaughter with intent to eat one olive-bulk of the offering beyond its time and one olive-bulk outside its area, which is comparable to a case where one says: To split, since both intentions are held during the singular act of slaughter. And nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree, and Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one attends only to the first statement, renders the animal piggul.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא לְבַסּוֹף?! יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף; וּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ – דְּאָמַר: סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, סִימָן שֵׁנִי חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ.
Abaye said to him: Do you hold that slaughter is considered to have been performed only at its end, such that it takes effect in a single instant? Actually, slaughter is accomplished progressively, from beginning to end, and our mishna is referring to a case where one says: I slaughter the first siman, the gullet or the windpipe, with intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, and the second siman with intent to consume it outside its designated area.
הֲרֵי קְמִיצָה – (דלכי) [דִּכִי] לַחֲצוֹת דָּמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי!
The Gemara asks: But what about the removal of a handful from a meal offering with intent to eat one olive-bulk beyond its time and one outside of its area, which is comparable to a case where one says: To split, since both intentions are held during the removal, and nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to it in tractate Menaḥot (12a)?
הָתָם נָמֵי – שֶׁהִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ מִנְחָה חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, קוֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ.
The Gemara responds: Since the mishna does not state such a dispute explicitly, one can say that their disagreement is not with regard to the removal of the handful but with regard to the burning of the two permitting factors of the meal offering, the handful and the frankincense. Accordingly, there too, the case is such that the priest burned the handful of the meal offering with intent to eat it beyond its designated time, and he burned the handful of frankincense with intent to eat the meal offering outside its designated area.
הֲרֵי קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא – דְּלֵיכָּא לְבוֹנָה בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וּפְלִיגִי!
The Gemara persists: But what about the handful from a meal offering of a sinner, which has no frankincense with it, and still Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree?
לָא פְּלִיגִי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי, פְּלִיגִי בִּפְסִיעוֹת.
The Gemara responds: In that case they do not disagree. Rav Ashi says: Even if you say that they disagree in that case, one may say that they disagree specifically with regard to a case where the priest had different intentions during his steps toward the altar while holding the handful. Consequently, even this rite is divisible into separate parts.
רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי כִּדְאַבָּיֵי, רַב הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן מַתְנֵי כִּדְרָבָא.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi would teach in accordance with the opinion of Abaye that in a case where one explicitly mentions both intentions at once, Rabbi Meir concedes that both sanctities apply to the animal. Rav Huna bar Natan would teach in accordance with the opinion of Rava that even in such a case, Rabbi Meir considers only the first sanctity mentioned.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אֲמַר: רַבִּי מֵאִיר – בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: When Rabbi Meir said that if one says: This animal is hereby the substitute of a burnt offering, the substitute of a peace offering, then the animal is the substitute of a burnt offering, he said this according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that in general, the halakha is to attend only to the first statement.
דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל: אִם מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן קָדְמָה אֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
As we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said that this is the principle: If the intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, וְהָא רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כִּי מַגְּעַתְּ לְהוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, לָא פְּלִיגִי!
Abaye said to Rav Dimi: But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: When you consider their opinions, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei do not disagree with one another, i.e., neither holds that one attends only to the first statement?
וְלָא פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלִיגִי בְּמַאי דִּפְלִיגִי, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי בְּמַאי דְּלָא פְּלִיגִי.
Rav Dimi objected: And is it so that they do not disagree? But don’t they disagree explicitly in the mishna cited earlier? Abaye said to him: They disagree where they disagree, i.e., that specific case, but they do not disagree where they do not disagree, i.e., the underlying principle. Accordingly, one must understand the basis of their dispute in another manner.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״תָּחוּל זוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ (אָמַר) תָּחוּל זוֹ״ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לָא חָיְילָא; ״לֹא תָּחוּל זוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה זוֹ״ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חָיְילָא;
This is as Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All, i.e., Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, concede that in a case where one says: Let this sanctity of a burnt offering take effect and afterward let that sanctity of a peace offering take effect, everyone agrees that the sanctity of a peace offering does not take effect, because the sanctity of the burnt offering took effect first. Likewise, if one said: This sanctity shall not take effect unless that sanctity applies, everyone agrees that the sanctity of a peace offering takes effect as well.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דְּאָמַר: ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים״ וַאֲמַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִיהְדָּר קָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ.
They disagree with regard to a case where one says: This animal is hereby a substitute for a burnt offering, a substitute for a peace offering. Rabbi Meir holds: Since if he wanted both sanctities to take effect, he should have said: A substitute for a burnt offering and a peace offering, but he said instead: A substitute for a burnt offering, a substitute for a peace offering, learn from his language that he originally intended for it to be a burnt offering, and he then retracted his first intention.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – אִי אֲמַר: ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא פַּלְגָא תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּפַלְגָא תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים; לְהָכִי אֲמַר: ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – לְמֵימְרָא דְּכוּלַּהּ עוֹלָה וְכוּלַּהּ שְׁלָמִים הָוְיָא.
And Rabbi Yosei holds that if he had said: A substitute for a burnt offering and a peace offering, I would say that he means that half the animal should be a substitute for a burnt offering and half a substitute for a peace offering. He therefore says: A substitute for a burnt offering, a substitute for a peace offering; that is to say that all of it is a burnt offering and all of it is a peace offering. In any event, according to this explanation, Rabbi Meir does not necessarily hold that one attends only to the first statement.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוּא אָמַר לָא פְּלִיגִי, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא פְּלִיגִי.
Rav Dimi said to Abaye: He, Rabba bar bar Ḥana, says that they do not disagree, but I say that they disagree, and Rabbi Meir holds that one attends only to the first statement, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna.
אָמַר עוּלָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אֶפְשָׁר יָדְעִין חַבְרִין בַּבְלָאָה – ״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״ תְּנַן, אוֹ ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ תְּנַן?
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna itself: Ulla said, and some say it was Rav Oshaya who said: Perhaps our colleagues, the Babylonians, know whether we learn the language of the improper intention in the mishna as: I hereby slaughter the animal with intent to consume an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or we learn: An olive-bulk beyond its designated time and an olive-bulk outside its designated area?
״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״ תְּנַן – אֲבָל ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ תְּנַן, דִּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פְּרָטָא הָוֵי – וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן ״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״?
The Gemara elaborates: Perhaps we learn: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk, and it is only in this case that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis. But if one said: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, everyone agrees that it constitutes a combination of intentions, and the animal is not rendered piggul. Or perhaps we learn: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, where according to Rabbi Yehuda each term constitutes a separate term despite the use of the conjunction: And, and he holds that one attends only to the first statement, and all the more so if one said: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ לֵוִי מֵרַבִּי: חִישֵּׁב לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ, מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: זוֹ שְׁאֵילָה! עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that dilemma which Levi raised before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If one had intent to consume an olive-bulk the next day outside its designated area, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: This is an excellent question. The answer is that even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that this constitutes a combination of intentions and that the animal is not rendered piggul.
אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי: לֹא מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ הִיא?! לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר; כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ; כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר; כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. הָא אִידַּךְ – עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי!
Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said before him: How is this an excellent question; is it not our mishna? As we learned in the mishna: If one expressed intent to eat an olive-bulk outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified and there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees only with regard to these cases; but in another case, it could easily be inferred that he concedes that it constitutes a combination of intentions.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוּא שָׁאַל בִּי דְּבַר חָכְמָה, וְאַתְּ אָמַרְתָּ מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ?! לְדִידָךְ דְּאַתְנִיתָךְ תַּרְתֵּי – לָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ;
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Levi asked me a matter of wisdom, and you say our mishna. For you, whom I taught two phrasings of the mishna, both: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk, and: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, the question is not difficult, since my omission of this other case allows you to infer its halakha.
לְדִידֵיהּ דְּלָא אַתְנִיתֵיהּ אֶלָּא חֲדָא, וְשַׁמְעִינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּקָא גָרְסִי תַּרְתֵּי – וְסָבַר: דִּידִי דַּוְוקָא, וְדִידְהוּ עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי? אוֹ דִלְמָא דִּידְהוּ דַּוְוקָא, וּלְדִידִי שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר לִי; וּמִדְּשַׁיַּיר לִי לְדִידִי הָא – שַׁיַּיר לְהוּ לְדִידְהוּ נָמֵי בְּהָךְ?
For him, whom I taught only one phrasing, and who heard the Rabbis reciting two, the question is excellent, since Levi thought: Perhaps my phrasing is exact, and their additional phrasing constitutes a combination of intentions according to all opinions. Or perhaps their phrasing is exact, and my phrasing omitted this case. And if my phrasing omitted this case, perhaps their phrasing also omitted that other case, even though it is subject to disagreement.
וְהֵי אַתְנְיֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ אַתְנְיֵיהּ – הַאי לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא! אֶלָּא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״ אַתְנְיֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And which phrasing did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teach Levi? If we say that he taught him: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, i.e., that Rabbi Yehuda still holds the terms to be distinct despite the conjunction, this is not an omission, since one can infer a fortiori that the same applies to: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk. Rather, it must be that he taught him: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk, so that it was unclear to Levi what the halakha would be if one used the conjunction: And.
וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״!
The Gemara asks: If so, why did Levi raise the dilemma with regard to the phrasing: The next day outside? Let him raise the dilemma with regard to the phrasing: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk.
סְבַר: אִיבְעֵי מִינֵּיהּ חֲדָא – דְּשָׁמַעְנָא תַּרְתֵּי. דְּאִי בָּעֵינָא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ – הָא נִיחָא אִי אָמַר לִי כְּלָלָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן ״כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ״; אֶלָּא אִי אָמַר לִי פְּרָטָא – אַכַּתִּי ״כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ״ קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי.
The Gemara responds: Levi thought: I will raise one dilemma before him so as to learn two halakhot. As, if I ask only with regard to: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, it will work out well if he says to me that Rabbi Yehuda concedes that they constitute one general term, as this would apply all the more so if one said: An olive-bulk the next day outside, which is even more unified. But if he says to me that each term constitutes a separate term according to Rabbi Yehuda, then I will still need to raise the dilemma with regard to the case of: An olive-bulk the next day outside. I will therefore inquire with regard to the latter case.
אִי הָכִי, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי – הָתִינַח אִי אָמַר לֵיהּ ״כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ״ פְּרָטָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״; אֶלָּא אִי אָמַר לֵיהּ כְּלָלָא, אַכַּתִּי ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
The Gemara challenges: If so, now too, it works out well if he says to him that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the wording: An olive-bulk the next day outside, is constituted of separate terms, as this would apply all the more so if one said: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, which is less unified. But if he says to him that it is one general term according to Rabbi Yehuda, then he will still need to raise the dilemma with regard to the case of: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk.
אִם כֵּן מִרְתָּח רָתַח:
The Gemara responds: If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi answered in this manner, i.e., that Rabbi Yehuda concedes that: An olive-bulk the next day outside, is considered one term, he would unwittingly provide the answer to the other question as well. As, if Rabbi Yehuda had also conceded with regard to: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would become angry with Levi for asking the wrong question and say:
