Today's Daf Yomi
May 13, 2018 | 讻状讞 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讞
-
This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit
Zevachim 30
If one did have multiple “bad” intents during the sacrificial rites, it is not considered pigul that one would receive karet. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees in a particular case. Rabbi Yochanan and Ilfa disagree as to which case聽exactly does Rabbi Yehuda disagree. A debate in tmura regarding a similar situation is brought as a comparison.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讘砖转讬 注讘讜讚讜转 住讬驻讗 讘讬谉 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讞转 讘讬谉 讘砖转讬 注讘讜讚讜转
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.
转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 拽讚诪讛 诇诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讬诇驻讗 诪讗讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 拽砖讬讗
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 Yo岣nan, 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.
转谞谉 讛转诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专
搂 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.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诐 诇讻讱 谞转讻讜讜谉 转讞讬诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖转讬 砖诪讜转 讻讗讞转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诪砖讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜谞诪诇讱 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 注讜诇讛
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.
讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛讜 诇讞爪讜转 诪讛讜
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?
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讗 讗诪专 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讞诇讜拽转
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.
讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讘讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛专讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讚诇讻讬 诇讞爪讜转 讚诪讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬
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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 诇讘住讜祝 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪转讞讬诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讜诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 住讬诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜
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.
讛专讬 拽诪讬爪讛 讚诇讻讬 诇讞爪讜转 讚诪讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬
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 Mena岣t (12a)?
讛转诐 谞诪讬 砖讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诪谞讞讛 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 拽讜诪抓 诇讘讜谞讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜
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.
讛专讬 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讜驻诇讬讙讬
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?
诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻住讬注讜转
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.
专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 讻讚讗讘讬讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 诪转谞讬 讻讚专讘讗
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.
讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉
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.
讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 拽讚诪讛 讗转 诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转
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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 诪讙注转 诇讛讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬
Abaye said to Rav Dimi: But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?
讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讗讬 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讗讬 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬
Rav Dimi objected: And is it so that they do not disagree? But don鈥檛 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.
讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 (讗诪专) 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗 诇讗 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞诇讛 讝讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬诇讗
This is as Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.
讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讬讛讚专 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛
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.
讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 驻诇讙讗 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜驻诇讙讗 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讛讻讬 讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 讜讻讜诇讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讬讗
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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 驻诇讬讙讬
Rav Dimi said to Abaye: He, Rabba bar bar 岣na, 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.
讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗驻砖专 讬讚注讬谉 讞讘专讬谉 讘讘诇讗讛 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 转谞谉 讗讜 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 转谞谉
搂 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?
讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 转谞谉 讗讘诇 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讬专讜讘 诪讞砖讘讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 转谞谉 讚诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转
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.
转讗 砖诪注 讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讜讬 诪专讘讬 讞讬砖讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 砖讗讬诇讛 注讬专讜讘 诪讞砖讘讜转 讛讜讬
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.
讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 诇讗 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讛讬讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讛讗 讗讬讚讱 注讬专讜讘 诪讞砖讘讜转 讛讜讬
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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 砖讗诇 讘讬 讚讘专 讞讻诪讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗转谞讬转讱 转专转讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱
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.
诇讚讬讚讬讛 讚诇讗 讗转谞讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 讜砖诪注讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚拽讗 讙专住讬 转专转讬 讜住讘专 讚讬讚讬 讚讜讜拽讗 讜讚讬讚讛讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讞砖讘讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讚讜讜拽讗 讜诇讚讬讚讬 砖讬讜专讬 砖讬讬专 诇讬 讜诪讚砖讬讬专 诇讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讛讗 砖讬讬专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 谞诪讬 讘讛讱
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.
讜讛讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 讗转谞讬讬讛 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 讗转谞讬讬讛
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.
讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转
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.
住讘专 讗讬讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讚讗 讚砖诪注谞讗 转专转讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 讛讗 谞讬讞讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讻诇诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬 驻专讟讗 讗讻转讬 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬
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.
讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讛转讬谞讞 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 驻专讟讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇诇讗 讗讻转讬 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛
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.
讗诐 讻谉 诪专转讞 专转讞
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:
-
This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Zevachim 30
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讘砖转讬 注讘讜讚讜转 住讬驻讗 讘讬谉 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讞转 讘讬谉 讘砖转讬 注讘讜讚讜转
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.
转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 拽讚诪讛 诇诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讬诇驻讗 诪讗讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 拽砖讬讗
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 Yo岣nan, 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.
转谞谉 讛转诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专
搂 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.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诐 诇讻讱 谞转讻讜讜谉 转讞讬诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖转讬 砖诪讜转 讻讗讞转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诪砖讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜谞诪诇讱 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 注讜诇讛
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.
讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛讜 诇讞爪讜转 诪讛讜
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?
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讗 讗诪专 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讞诇讜拽转
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.
讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讘讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛专讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讚诇讻讬 诇讞爪讜转 讚诪讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬
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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 诇讘住讜祝 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪转讞讬诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讜诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 住讬诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 住讬诪谉 砖谞讬 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜
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.
讛专讬 拽诪讬爪讛 讚诇讻讬 诇讞爪讜转 讚诪讬 讜驻诇讬讙讬
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 Mena岣t (12a)?
讛转诐 谞诪讬 砖讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诪谞讞讛 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 拽讜诪抓 诇讘讜谞讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜
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.
讛专讬 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讜驻诇讬讙讬
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?
诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻住讬注讜转
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.
专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 讻讚讗讘讬讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 诪转谞讬 讻讚专讘讗
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.
讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉
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.
讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 拽讚诪讛 讗转 诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转
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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 诪讙注转 诇讛讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬
Abaye said to Rav Dimi: But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?
讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讗讬 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讗讬 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬
Rav Dimi objected: And is it so that they do not disagree? But don鈥檛 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.
讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 (讗诪专) 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讗 诇讗 转讞讜诇 讝讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞诇讛 讝讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬诇讗
This is as Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.
讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讬讛讚专 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛
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.
讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 驻诇讙讗 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讜驻诇讙讗 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讛讻讬 讗诪专 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 讜讻讜诇讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讬讗
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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 驻诇讬讙讬
Rav Dimi said to Abaye: He, Rabba bar bar 岣na, 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.
讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗驻砖专 讬讚注讬谉 讞讘专讬谉 讘讘诇讗讛 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 转谞谉 讗讜 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 转谞谉
搂 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?
讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 转谞谉 讗讘诇 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讬专讜讘 诪讞砖讘讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 转谞谉 讚诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻专讟讗 讛讜讬 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转
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.
转讗 砖诪注 讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讜讬 诪专讘讬 讞讬砖讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 砖讗讬诇讛 注讬专讜讘 诪讞砖讘讜转 讛讜讬
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.
讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 诇讗 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讛讬讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讛讗 讗讬讚讱 注讬专讜讘 诪讞砖讘讜转 讛讜讬
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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 砖讗诇 讘讬 讚讘专 讞讻诪讛 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗转谞讬转讱 转专转讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱
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.
诇讚讬讚讬讛 讚诇讗 讗转谞讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 讜砖诪注讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚拽讗 讙专住讬 转专转讬 讜住讘专 讚讬讚讬 讚讜讜拽讗 讜讚讬讚讛讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讞砖讘讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讚讜讜拽讗 讜诇讚讬讚讬 砖讬讜专讬 砖讬讬专 诇讬 讜诪讚砖讬讬专 诇讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讛讗 砖讬讬专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 谞诪讬 讘讛讱
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.
讜讛讬 讗转谞讬讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 讗转谞讬讬讛 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 讗转谞讬讬讛
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.
讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转
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.
住讘专 讗讬讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讚讗 讚砖诪注谞讗 转专转讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 讛讗 谞讬讞讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讻诇诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬 驻专讟讗 讗讻转讬 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬
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.
讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讛转讬谞讞 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 驻专讟讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇诇讗 讗讻转讬 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛
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.
讗诐 讻谉 诪专转讞 专转讞
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:
