Zevachim 31

השתא כזית וכזית כללא כזית למחר בחוץ מיבעיא

Now that Rabbi Yehuda concedes that even: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, is one general term, is it necessary to inquire with regard to: An olive-bulk the next day outside?

לישנא אחרינא כזית למחר בחוץ פרטא כזית כזית מיבעיא

The Gemara presents another version of this discussion: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi might say that if Rabbi Yehuda maintains that even when one says: An olive-bulk the next day outside, each term is considered separate, is it necessary to inquire with regard to: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk?

איתמר חצי זית חוץ לזמנו חצי זית חוץ למקומו וחצי זית חוץ לזמנו אמר רבא ויקץ כישן הפיגול ורב המנונא אמר עירוב מחשבות הוי

§ It was stated: If one had intent to eat half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, and another half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, Rava says: In such a case, the piggul: “Awaked as one asleep” (Psalms 78:65), i.e., since one had intent to consume two halves of an olive-bulk beyond their designated time, these intentions are joined together. The middle thought is disregarded, since it constitutes only half the requisite measure, and the offering is rendered piggul. And Rav Hamnuna says: It constitutes a combination of improper intentions. The middle thought, although itself insufficient to disqualify the offering, is sufficient to interfere with the intention to consume it beyond its time, and the offering is not rendered piggul.

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתנן כביצה אוכל ראשון וכביצה אוכל שני שבללן זה בזה ראשון חלקן זה שני וזה שני הא חזר ועירבן ראשון הוי

Rava said: From where, i.e., based on what, do I state my ruling? As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 1:5): An egg-bulk of food with first-degree impurity and an egg-bulk of food with second-degree impurity that one mixed together are collectively considered to have first-degree impurity. If one separated them into two portions, each containing a homogenous mixture, this portion is considered to have second-degree impurity and that portion is considered to have second-degree impurity. Since neither of them contains the requisite amount of food with first-degree impurity, each mixture settles to the lower level of impurity between the two foods. Rava reasoned: But if one mixed them again, they revert to be of first-degree impurity.

ממאי מדקתני סיפא נפל זה בעצמו וזה בעצמו על ככר של תרומה פסלוה נפלו שניהן כאחת עשאוה שניה

From where do I know this? From the fact that the latter clause of that mishna teaches: If this portion fell by itself and that portion fell by itself onto a loaf of teruma, it disqualifies it, as would any food with second-degree impurity. But it does not render it impure, since only foods with first-degree impurity impart impurity to other foods. But if they both fell simultaneously onto the loaf, they render it a food with second-degree impurity. Evidently, although the first-degree impurity lay dormant for lack of a requisite measure, it resurfaces when the rest of the measure is added, despite the fact that each portion was previously considered to have second-degree impurity. The halakha would be the same in the case of intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, i.e., the intent to consume half an olive-bulk outside its area does not interfere with the intent of piggul.

ורב המנונא אמר התם איכא שיעורא הכא ליכא שיעורא

And Rav Hamnuna says: The cases are different. There, in the case of ritual impurity, there is a requisite measure present at the outset, which is divided and then recombined. Here, in the case of the offering, there is no requisite measure present at the outset to render it piggul.

אמר רב המנונא מנא אמינא לה דתנן האוכל שנטמא באב הטומאה ושנטמא בולד הטומאה מצטרפין זה עם זה לטמא בקל שבשניהם מאי לאו אף על גב דהדר מלייה

Rav Hamnuna said: From where do I say my opinion? As we learned in another mishna (Me’ila 17b): The food that became ritually impure through contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, thereby assuming first-degree impurity, and the food that became ritually impure through contact with a derivative source of ritual impurity, thereby assuming second-degree impurity, join together to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk to impart impurity in accordance with the more lenient of the two, i.e., as a food of second-degree impurity. What, is it not that they retain second-degree impurity even if one makes up the requisite measure again? If so, it can be inferred that the first-degree impurity is lost, and it does not lie dormant or resurface. Here as well, the latter intent of piggul cannot restore the initial intent of piggul, as the intent to consume half an olive-bulk outside its area interfered.

דלמא דלא הדר מלייה

The Gemara responds: Perhaps the mishna is referring specifically to a case where one does not complete the requisite measure again.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר חצי זית חוץ למקומו וחצי זית חוץ לזמנו וחצי זית חוץ לזמנו תני בר קפרא פיגול אין חצי זית מועיל במקום כזית

The Gemara presents similar cases: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: If one had intent to eat half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, and half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, and then another half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, bar Kappara teaches that the offering is rendered piggul, since the half an olive-bulk with regard to the area is not effective to interfere where the intent with regard to the time concerns a whole olive-bulk.

כי אתא רבין אמר חצי זית חוץ לזמנו וחצי זית חוץ לזמנו וחצי זית חוץ למקומו תני בר קפרא פיגול אין חצי זית מועיל במקום כזית

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he stated a different formulation: If one had intent to eat half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, and then another half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, and then half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, bar Kappara teaches that the offering is rendered piggul, since the half an olive-bulk is not effective to interfere where the intent of piggul concerns a whole olive-bulk.

רב אשי מתני הכי חצי זית חוץ לזמנו וכזית חציו חוץ למקומו וחציו חוץ לזמנו תני בר קפרא פיגול אין חצי זית מועיל במקום כזית

Rav Ashi teaches the halakha in this manner: If one had intent to eat half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, and then intended with regard to a whole olive-bulk to eat half of it outside its designated area and half of it beyond its designated time, bar Kappara teaches that the offering is rendered piggul, because the half an olive-bulk is not effective to interfere where the intent of piggul concerns a whole olive-bulk.

אמר רבי ינאי חישב שיאכלוהו כלבים למחר פיגול דכתיב ואת איזבל יאכלו הכלבים בחלק יזרעאל

§ Rabbi Yannai says: If one had intent that dogs would eat the offering the next day, it is rendered piggul, as it is written: “And the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel” (II Kings 9:10). The verse indicates that consumption by dogs is considered eating.

מתקיף לה רבי אמי אלא מעתה חישב שתאכלהו אש למחר דכתיב תאכלהו אש לא נפח הכי נמי דפיגול וכי תימא הכי נמי והתנן לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר חצי כזית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין

Rabbi Ami objects to this: If that is so, then if one had intent that non-sacred fire would consume it the next day, as it is written: “A fire not blown shall consume him” (Job 20:26), this too should be piggul. And if you would say that this is indeed so, that is difficult: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: If his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk not at the appropriate time or in the appropriate area, the offering is fit because eating and burning do not join together?

אי דאפקה בלשון אכילה הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן דאפקה בלשון הקטרה דלשון אכילה לחוד ולשון הקטרה לחוד

The Gemara responds: If one expressed his intention to burn the offering in terms of consumption, it would indeed join together with intention to eat. But in the mishna here we are dealing with a case where he expressed it in terms of burning. The two intentions do not join together since terms of consumption and terms of burning are discrete entities.

בעי רב אשי חישב לאכול כזית בשני בני אדם מהו בתר מחשבה אזלינן דאיכא שיעורא או בתר אוכלין אזלינן וליכא שיעורא

§ Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If one had intent that two people would collectively eat an olive-bulk, what is the halakha? Do we follow the intent, in which case there is the requisite measure of an olive-bulk? Or do we follow those who eat, and neither eats the requisite measure?

אמר אביי תא שמע לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר כחצי זית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין

Abaye said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk beyond the designated time or outside the designated area, the offering is fit because eating and burning do not join together.

הא לאכול ולאכול דומיא דלאכול ולהקטיר והיכי דמי בשני בני אדם מצטרף שמע מינה

It can be inferred that if one had intent to eat and to eat in a manner similar to a case of intent to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk; Abaye interjects: And what are the circumstances of such a case? It is a case with two people, i.e., where each one will consume half an olive-bulk. Abaye continues with the conclusion of his statement: Then the two halves join together. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that this is so.

בעי רבא חישב לאכול כזית ביתר מכדי אכילת פרס מהו לאכילת גבוה מדמינן ליה או לאכילת הדיוט מדמינן ליה

Rava raises a dilemma: If one had intent to eat an olive-bulk in more than the period of time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, what is the halakha? Do we equate the consumption of offerings to the consumption of the Most High, i.e., the burning of offerings on the altar, for which there is no maximum allotted time? Or do we equate it to the consumption of an ordinary person, for whom consumption slower than this rate is not considered eating?

אמר אביי תא שמע לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר כחצי זית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין טעמא דלאכול ולהקטיר הא לאכול ולאכול מצטרף והא הקטרה ביותר מכדי אכילת פרס הוא

Abaye said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk not at the appropriate time or in the appropriate area, the offering is fit because eating and burning do not join together. One may infer that the reason the offering is fit is that he had intent to eat and to burn the offering. But if he had intent to eat half an olive-bulk at the normal rate and to eat half an olive-bulk in the time it takes to burn half an olive-bulk, the two would join together. But the burning of an olive-bulk of an offering can take more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. It therefore seems that there is no upper limit on the time in which one is considered to have consumed an offering.

דלמא בהיסק גדול

The Gemara rejects the proof: Perhaps the mishna is referring to intent to burn half an olive-bulk in a large fire, which can consume it in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Accordingly, one may draw the inference only with regard to a case where his intent was to consume the halves of an olive-bulk within this time.

לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר כחצי זית כשר טעמא דלאכול ולהקטיר הא לאכול ולאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול מצטרף

§ The mishna teaches: If one slaughtered the animal with intent to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk not at the appropriate time or in the appropriate area, the offering is fit. The Gemara infers: The reason that the two halves of an olive-bulk do not join together is because his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk. But if his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk of the meat and to eat half an olive-bulk of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, then the halves do join together and disqualify the offering, as both intentions concern eating.

הא קתני רישא לאכול את שדרכו לאכול (מצטרף) את שדרכו לאכול אין שאין דרכו לא

The Gemara notes an apparent contradiction: But the first clause of the mishna teaches: If one’s intent was to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, beyond its designated time, his intent joins together to disqualify the offering. One can infer that only if his intent was to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, does his intent join together, but if his intent was to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not to partake of it, then it does not join together.

אמר רבי ירמיה הא מני רבי אליעזר היא דאמר מחשבין מאכילת אדם לאכילת מזבח ומאכילת מזבח לאכילת אדם דתנן השוחט את הזבח לאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר כשר ורבי אליעזר פוסל

Rabbi Yirmeya says: In accordance with whose opinion is this latter clause? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: One can have intent to shift an item’s consumption from consumption by a person to consumption by the altar, or from consumption by the altar to consumption by a person. As we learned in another mishna (35a): In the case of one who slaughters the offering with intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not to partake of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the offering is fit, and Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit.

אביי אמר אפילו תימא רבנן ולא תימא הא לאכול ולאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול אלא אימא הא לאכול ולאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול

Abaye says: You may even say that the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And do not say that one should infer from the mishna that if his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk of an item normally consumed and to eat half an olive-bulk of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, then the offering is disqualified. Rather, say that one infers that if his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to eat another half an olive-bulk, both halves from an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, then the halves join together to disqualify the offering.

מאי קא משמע לן אי דבר שדרכו לאכול קא משמע לן מרישא שמע מינה כחצי זית בחוץ כחצי זית למחר פסול הא כחצי זית למחר פיגול

The Gemara asks: If so, what is this latter clause teaching us? If it teaches us that two half olive-bulks from an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, join together, one can already learn this from the first clause of the mishna: If one has intent to consume half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, the offering is disqualified. One can infer that if his intent was to eat the first half an olive-bulk the next day, the offering would be rendered piggul.

אלא אי לאכול ולהקטיר מדוקיא דרישא שמע מינה לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול אין שאין דרכו לאכול לא

But if one will say that this term teaches its literal meaning, that intentions to eat and to burn two halves of an olive-bulk do not join together, one can already learn this from the inference drawn above from the first clause of the mishna, namely that intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it does disqualify the offering, but intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it does not. By extension, intent to consume half an olive-bulk of such an item does not join to disqualify the offering.

השתא ומה לאכול ולאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול לא מצטרף לאכול ולהקטיר מיבעי

Now, consider the following: And just as if when one has intent to partake of an item normally eaten and to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, his intentions do not join together, even though both intentions concern consumption, is it necessary for the mishna to teach that intentions to consume and to burn do not join together? The last clause therefore seems unnecessary.

לאכול ולהקטיר איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא התם הוא דלאו כי אורחיה קא מחשב אבל הכא דבהאי כי אורחיה ובהאי כי אורחיה אימא ליצטרף קא משמע לן

The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the mishna to explicitly address the case where one had intent to eat and to burn, as it might enter your mind to say that it is only there, where one’s intentions are referring solely to consumption, that they do not join together, since he has intent to act in a way that is not consistent with its typical manner and consume an item not normally consumed. But here, where his intent is to both eat and burn the offering, such that with regard to this half he intends to act in a way consistent with its typical manner, and with regard to that half he intends to act in a way consistent with its typical manner, one might say that they should join together. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that intentions to eat and to burn do not join together.

הדרן עלך כל הזבחים שקבלו דמן

מתני׳ כל הפסולין ששחטו שחיטתן כשרה שהשחיטה כשרה בזרים ובנשים ובעבדים ובטמאים ואפילו בקדשי קדשים ובלבד שלא יהיו טמאים נוגעין בבשר לפיכך הן פוסלין במחשבה

MISHNA: With regard to all those who are unfit for Temple service who slaughtered an offering, their slaughter is valid, as the slaughter of an offering is valid ab initio when performed even by non-priests, by women, by Canaanite slaves, and by ritually impure individuals. And this is the halakha even with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, provided that the ritually impure will not touch the flesh of the slaughtered animal, thereby rendering it impure. Therefore, these unfit individuals can disqualify the offering with prohibited intent, e.g., if one of them intended to partake of the offering beyond its designated time or outside its designated area.