Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 14, 2018 | 讻状讟 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Zevachim 31

Study Guide Zevachim 31. Different cases are discussed where there is some combination of time and place pigul and the question is does one get karet for them or not even according to Rabbi聽Yehuda’s approach? Different inferences are made from one line in the mishna聽in order to answer various questions.

讛砖转讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 讻诇诇讗 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 驻专讟讗 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讗讬转诪专 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讬拽抓 讻讬砖谉 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 注讬专讜讘 诪讞砖讘讜转 讛讜讬

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: 鈥淎waked as one asleep鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讻讘讬爪讛 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜讻讘讬爪讛 讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 砖讘诇诇谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 专讗砖讜谉 讞诇拽谉 讝讛 砖谞讬 讜讝讛 砖谞讬 讛讗 讞讝专 讜注讬专讘谉 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讬

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.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 谞驻诇 讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 注诇 讻讻专 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 驻住诇讜讛 谞驻诇讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讻讗讞转 注砖讗讜讛 砖谞讬讛

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.

讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛讗讜讻诇 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜砖谞讟诪讗 讘讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 诇讟诪讗 讘拽诇 砖讘砖谞讬讛诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讚专 诪诇讬讬讛

Rav Hamnuna said: From where do I say my opinion? As we learned in another mishna (Me鈥檌la 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.

讚诇诪讗 讚诇讗 讛讚专 诪诇讬讬讛

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

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讗讬谉 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讻讝讬转

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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讗讬谉 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讻讝讬转

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.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讻讝讬转 讞爪讬讜 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜讞爪讬讜 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讗讬谉 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讻讝讬转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讞讬砖讘 砖讬讗讻诇讜讛讜 讻诇讘讬诐 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讗讬讝讘诇 讬讗讻诇讜 讛讻诇讘讬诐 讘讞诇拽 讬讝专注讗诇

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

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讬砖讘 砖转讗讻诇讛讜 讗砖 诇诪讞专 讚讻转讬讘 转讗讻诇讛讜 讗砖 诇讗 谞驻讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讬讙讜诇 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讞爪讬 讻讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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: 鈥淎 fire not blown shall consume him鈥 (Job 20:26), this too should be piggul. And if you would say that this is indeed so, that is difficult: But didn鈥檛 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?

讗讬 讚讗驻拽讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗驻拽讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讛拽讟专讛 讚诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛 诇讞讜讚 讜诇砖讜谉 讛拽讟专讛 诇讞讜讚

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.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讬砖讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讛讜 讘转专 诪讞砖讘讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讗讜 讘转专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗

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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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.

讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪爪讟专祝 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讞讬砖讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘讬转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 诪讛讜 诇讗讻讬诇转 讙讘讜讛 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 诇讗讻讬诇转 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 诪爪讟专祝 讜讛讗 讛拽讟专讛 讘讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讛讜讗

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.

讚诇诪讗 讘讛讬住拽 讙讚讜诇

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.

诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诪爪讟专祝

搂 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.

讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 (诪爪讟专祝) 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗

The Gemara notes an apparent contradiction: But the first clause of the mishna teaches: If one鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 讜诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇

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鈥檚 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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪专讬砖讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 驻住讜诇 讛讗 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙讜诇

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 诪讚讜拽讬讗 讚专讬砖讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诇讗

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.

讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 诪讬讘注讬

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.

诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗讜 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪讞砖讘 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘讛讗讬 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讜讘讛讗讬 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬爪讟专祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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鈥檚 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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖拽讘诇讜 讚诪谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 砖砖讞讟讜 砖讞讬讟转谉 讻砖专讛 砖讛砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖专讛 讘讝专讬诐 讜讘谞砖讬诐 讜讘注讘讚讬诐 讜讘讟诪讗讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讜 讟诪讗讬诐 谞讜讙注讬谉 讘讘砖专 诇驻讬讻讱 讛谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘诪讞砖讘讛

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 31

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 31

讛砖转讗 讻讝讬转 讜讻讝讬转 讻诇诇讗 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讘讞讜抓 驻专讟讗 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讗讬转诪专 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讬拽抓 讻讬砖谉 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 注讬专讜讘 诪讞砖讘讜转 讛讜讬

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: 鈥淎waked as one asleep鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讻讘讬爪讛 讗讜讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 讜讻讘讬爪讛 讗讜讻诇 砖谞讬 砖讘诇诇谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 专讗砖讜谉 讞诇拽谉 讝讛 砖谞讬 讜讝讛 砖谞讬 讛讗 讞讝专 讜注讬专讘谉 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讬

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.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 谞驻诇 讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 注诇 讻讻专 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 驻住诇讜讛 谞驻诇讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讻讗讞转 注砖讗讜讛 砖谞讬讛

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.

讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛讗讜讻诇 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讗讘 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜砖谞讟诪讗 讘讜诇讚 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 诇讟诪讗 讘拽诇 砖讘砖谞讬讛诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讚专 诪诇讬讬讛

Rav Hamnuna said: From where do I say my opinion? As we learned in another mishna (Me鈥檌la 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.

讚诇诪讗 讚诇讗 讛讚专 诪诇讬讬讛

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

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讗讬谉 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讻讝讬转

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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讗讬谉 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讻讝讬转

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.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讻讝讬转 讞爪讬讜 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜讞爪讬讜 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讗讬谉 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讻讝讬转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讞讬砖讘 砖讬讗讻诇讜讛讜 讻诇讘讬诐 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讗讬讝讘诇 讬讗讻诇讜 讛讻诇讘讬诐 讘讞诇拽 讬讝专注讗诇

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

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讬砖讘 砖转讗讻诇讛讜 讗砖 诇诪讞专 讚讻转讬讘 转讗讻诇讛讜 讗砖 诇讗 谞驻讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讬讙讜诇 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讞爪讬 讻讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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: 鈥淎 fire not blown shall consume him鈥 (Job 20:26), this too should be piggul. And if you would say that this is indeed so, that is difficult: But didn鈥檛 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?

讗讬 讚讗驻拽讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗驻拽讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讛拽讟专讛 讚诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛 诇讞讜讚 讜诇砖讜谉 讛拽讟专讛 诇讞讜讚

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.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讬砖讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讛讜 讘转专 诪讞砖讘讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讗讜 讘转专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专讗

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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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.

讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪爪讟专祝 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讞讬砖讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘讬转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 诪讛讜 诇讗讻讬诇转 讙讘讜讛 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 诇讗讻讬诇转 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 诪爪讟专祝 讜讛讗 讛拽讟专讛 讘讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讛讜讗

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.

讚诇诪讗 讘讛讬住拽 讙讚讜诇

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.

诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诪爪讟专祝

搂 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.

讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 (诪爪讟专祝) 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗

The Gemara notes an apparent contradiction: But the first clause of the mishna teaches: If one鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 讜诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇

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鈥檚 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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪专讬砖讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 驻住讜诇 讛讗 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙讜诇

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 诪讚讜拽讬讗 讚专讬砖讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诇讗

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.

讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 诪讬讘注讬

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.

诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗讜 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪讞砖讘 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘讛讗讬 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讜讘讛讗讬 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬爪讟专祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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鈥檚 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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖拽讘诇讜 讚诪谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 砖砖讞讟讜 砖讞讬讟转谉 讻砖专讛 砖讛砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖专讛 讘讝专讬诐 讜讘谞砖讬诐 讜讘注讘讚讬诐 讜讘讟诪讗讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讜 讟诪讗讬诐 谞讜讙注讬谉 讘讘砖专 诇驻讬讻讱 讛谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘诪讞砖讘讛

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.

Scroll To Top