זבחים דף כט

לא יערב בו מחשבות אחרות.

indicates that to render an offering piggul, the priest does not mix other improper intentions [maḥashavot] with intent of piggul. If he has more than one type of improper intent, the offering is disqualified, but it is not rendered piggul.

״פגול״ – זה חוץ למקומו.

When the verse states: “Piggul,” this is referring to an offering that one had intent to consume outside its designated area.

״יהיה״ – מלמד שמצטרפין זה עם זה.

And since the verse states: “It shall be,” and not: They shall be, this teaches that intent to consume half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time and intent to consume half an olive-bulk outside its designated area join together with one another to constitute the minimum measure required to disqualify the offering.

״והנפש האכלת ממנו״ – אחד ולא שנים; ואיזה? זה חוץ לזמנו – דגמר ״עון״–״עון״ מנותר, דדמי ליה בז״ב.

Finally, when the verse states: “And the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity,” the term “of it” indicates that only one of the above disqualifications carries the penalty of karet, but not two of them. And which is this? It is intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, as one derives by way of verbal analogy between “iniquity” and “iniquity” from notar (Leviticus 19:8), that “bear his iniquity” means that one is liable to receive karet. The comparison is apt since notar is similar to intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time in that both prohibitions share the features mentioned above that form the acronym: Zayin, beit.

אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא: לדידך, ״שלישי״ דפרשת ״קדשים תהיו״ – מאי דרשת ביה? ההוא מיבעי ליה למקום שיהא משולש בדם, בבשר ובאימורין.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: According to your opinion, in what way do you interpret the reference to the third day (Leviticus 19:7) in the Torah portion that begins: “You shall be holy”? Rava responded: That verse is necessary to teach that a given location is considered to be outside the offering’s designated area only if it is so in three ways, i.e., outside the permitted limits of the blood, of the meat, and of the sacrificial portions.

תיפוק לי מקרא קמא: ״אם האכל יאכל״ – מדאפקיה רחמנא בלשון ״שלישי״!

The Gemara asks: Why not let me derive that halakha from the first verse: “And if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day” (Leviticus 7:18), since the Merciful One expresses that verse as well with the term “third”? Since Rava derives the disqualification of intent to consume an offering outside its designated area from this verse, why not let him derive this halakha from the verse as well?

אמר רב אשי: אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב מתנה; אמר לי: אי מהתם, הוה אמינא: ״שלישי״ – פרט, ״פגול״ – כלל; ונעשה כלל מוסף על הפרט,

Rav Ashi said: I stated this halakha before Rav Mattana, and he said to me: If one were to derive this halakha only from there (Leviticus 7:18), I would say: The term “third” is a detail, and the term “piggul” is a generalization, and whenever a detail is followed by a generalization, the generalization becomes an addition to the detail, and consequently, all other areas are included as well. The additional verse teaches us that the halakha includes only those areas that are outside in three ways.

ואיתרבו שאר מקומות; קא משמע לן.

תנו רבנן: ״ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו״ – אמר רבי אליעזר: כוף אזנך לשמוע – במחשב לאכול מזבחו ביום השלישי הכתוב מדבר.

§ The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “And if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 7:18): Rabbi Eliezer said: Bend your ear to hear the true meaning of the verse: The verse is speaking of one who intends to partake of his offering on the third day. Or perhaps it is referring only to one who actually partakes of his offering on the third day, per the straightforward meaning of the verse? But that cannot be; would you say that after the offering is fit for the first two days, it should then be disqualified retroactively by being eaten on the third day?

או אינו אלא באוכל מזבחו ליום שלישי? אמרת: אחר שהוא כשר, יחזור ויפסל?!

אמר לו רבי עקיבא: הן! מצינו בזב וזבה ושומרת יום כנגד יום – שהן בחזקת טהרה, וכיון שראו סתרו; אף אתה אל תתמה

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yes, it could be disqualified retroactively. After all, we find with regard to a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], or a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava], or a woman who observes a clean day for a day when she experiences a discharge, that they all have the presumptive status of purity after immersing. But once they have seen another discharge the same day, they have negated this status retroactively, and everything they had touched after immersing becomes impure. Therefore, you as well should not be surprised about this offering consumed beyond its designated time, that even though it was rendered fit, it may then be disqualified retroactively.

על זה – שאף על פי שהוכשר, שיחזור ויפסל.

אמר ליה: הרי הוא אומר ״המקריב״ – בשעת הקרבה הוא נפסל, ואינו נפסל בשלישי. או אינו אומר ״המקריב״ אלא זה כהן המקריב?

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: But the same verse says: “He who offers it,” indicating that the offering is disqualified at the time of its offering, and it is not disqualified on the third day. Or perhaps when the verse says: “He who offers it,” this is referring only to the priest who sacrifices the offering, indicating that he is disqualified. But if so, it would have been enough for the verse to state: He who offers shall not be credited. Therefore, when it states instead: “Neither shall it be credited to he who offers it,” this indicates that the verse is speaking of the offering, and it is not speaking of the priest.

כשהוא אומר ״אתו״ – בזבח הוא מדבר, ואינו מדבר בכהן.

בן עזאי אומר: ״אתו״ מה תלמוד לומר? לפי שנאמר: ״לא תאחר לשלמו״ – יכול אף מאחר נדרו בלא ירצה? תלמוד לומר: ״אתו״ – אותו בלא ירצה,

Ben Azzai says: Why must the verse state: “It”? It is necessary because elsewhere it is stated: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying it; for the Lord your God will require it from you, and it will be sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:22). One might have thought that even one who is late in fulfilling his vow is included in: “It shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 7:18). Therefore, the verse states: “It,” to indicate that it, an offering rendered piggul, is included in the halakha of: “It shall not be accepted,” but the animal of one who is late in fulfilling his vow is not included in the halakha of: “It shall not be accepted.”

ואין המאחר נדרו בלא ירצה.

אחרים אומרים: ״לא יחשב״ – במחשבה הוא נפסל, ואינו נפסל בשלישי.

Aḥerim say: One can conclude that the verse (Leviticus 7:18) is referring to improper intention rather than improper consumption from the phrase “neither shall it be credited [yeḥashev],” which indicates that the offering is disqualified by improper intention [maḥashava], and it is not disqualified by consumption on the third day.

ובן עזאי – דבזבח הכתוב מדבר ואינו בכהן, מנא ליה? אי בעית אימא: נפקא ליה מדאחרים, ואיבעית אימא: מדכתיב ״לא ירצו״ ו״לא ירצה״ – זיבחא הוא.

The Gemara asks: And ben Azzai, who interprets the term “it” as excluding vows that were fulfilled late, from where does he derive that the verse is speaking of the offering and not of the priest? The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that he derives it from the statement of Aḥerim that the verse rules out disqualification on the third day itself. This would be necessary only if the verse is referring to the offering and not the priest. Or, if you wish, say instead: From the fact that it is written: “They shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:25), and: “It shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 7:18), it is evident that the verse is referring to an offering, which may be accepted or may not be accepted.

ובן עזאי – אותו ב״לא ירצה״ ואין מאחר נדרו ב״לא ירצה״, מהכא נפקא?! מדאחרים נפקא! דתניא, אחרים אומרים: יכול יהא בכור שעיברה שנתו –

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the statement of ben Azzai that one derives from the word “it” that it, i.e., piggul, is included in the halakha of: “It shall not be accepted,” but the animal of one who is late in fulfilling his vow is not included in the halakha of: “It shall not be accepted,” is this halakha derived from here? It is derived from the statement of Aḥerim, as it is taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say: One might have thought that a firstborn animal whose first year passed, during which time it ought to have been sacrificed, should be

כפסולי המוקדשין, ויפסל?

like disqualified consecrated animals, and it should be disqualified from being sacrificed, as though it had developed a blemish.

תלמוד לומר: ״ואכלת לפני ה׳ אלהיך מעשר דגנך וגו׳״ – מקיש בכור למעשר; מה מעשר – אינו נפסל משנה לחבירתה, אף בכור – אינו נפסל משנה לחבירתה.

Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place which He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborns of your herds, and of your flocks” (Deuteronomy 14:23). The verse juxtaposes a firstborn animal to the tithe of grain to indicate that just as the tithe is not disqualified by being kept over from one year to the next (see Deuteronomy 14:28), so too a firstborn animal is not disqualified by being kept over from one year to the next. If so, one already derives from this verse that an offering is not disqualified even if it is brought late.

איצטריך; סלקא דעתך אמינא: הני מילי בכור, דלאו בר הרצאה הוא; אבל קדשים, דבני הרצאה נינהו – אימא לא לירצו; קא משמע לן.

The Gemara responds: Nevertheless, the verse cited by ben Azzai was necessary, as without it, it might enter your mind to say that this matter applies only to a firstborn, which is not for acceptance, i.e., it does not serve to atone for any sin and is merely a gift for the priest, but with regard to other sacrificial animals that are for acceptance, say that they shall not effect acceptance when brought late. Therefore, the verse teaches us that even these others are not disqualified when brought late.

ואכתי מהתם נפקא?! ״והיה בך חטא״ – ולא בקרבנך חטא!

The Gemara asks further: But still, isn’t this halakha derived from a baraita elsewhere: The verse states: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying it; for the Lord your God will require it from you; and it will be sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:22), indicating that there is sin in you, but there is no sin in your offering, and therefore it is not disqualified due to the delay?

ובן עזאי – ההוא מבעי ליה: ״והיה בך חטא״ – ולא באשתך חטא. סלקא דעתך אמינא: הואיל ואמר רבי אלעזר ואיתימא רבי יוחנן:

The Gemara responds: Ben Azzai requires that verse to teach a different halakha: The phrase “and it will be sin in you” indicates that there will be sin in you, but there will not be sin in your wife. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Elazar said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said: A man’s wife does not die unless his creditors ask him for money that he owes and he does not have it, as it is stated: “If you do not have with what to pay, why should he take away your bed from under you?” (Proverbs 22:27); therefore, one’s wife also dies for this transgression of the prohibition: You shall not delay, since one has failed to fulfill his commitment. Consequently, the verse teaches us that the sin is imputed to him alone.

אין אשתו של אדם מתה אלא אם כן מבקשין ממנו ממון ואין לו, שנאמר: ״אם אין לך לשלם למה יקח משכבך מתחתיך״ – בהאי עון ד״בל תאחר״ נמי

מתה; קא משמע לן.

אחרים אומרים: במחשבה הוא נפסל, ואינו נפסל בשלישי. ורבי אליעזר – ״לא יחשב״ מאי עביד ליה?

§ The baraita stated that Aḥerim say: The phrase “neither shall it be credited” indicates that the offering is disqualified by improper intention, and it is not disqualified by consumption beyond its designated time on the third day. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, who derives this halakha from a different source, what does he do with the phrase “neither shall it be credited”?

מיבעי ליה לכדרבי ינאי – דאמר רבי ינאי: מנין למחשבות שמוציאות זו מזו? שנאמר: ״לא יחשב״ – לא יערב בו מחשבות אחרות.

The Gemara responds: He requires it for that which Rabbi Yannai says, as Rabbi Yannai says: From where is it derived with regard to intentions that they displace one another, i.e., that an additional improper intention prevents the offering from being rendered piggul? As it is stated: “Neither shall it be credited [yeḥashev],” indicating that an offering is rendered piggul only if the priest does not mix other improper intentions [maḥashavot] with intent of piggul.

ורב מרי מתני, אמר רבי ינאי: מנין למחשב בקדשים שהוא לוקה? תלמוד לומר: ״לא יחשב״.

And Rav Mari teaches that Rabbi Yannai says: From where is it derived that one who has improper intentions with regard to sacrificial animals is flogged like one who transgressed a prohibition? The verse states: “Neither shall it be credited [lo yeḥashev],” i.e., one reads the verse as if it states: One shall not have improper intention [lo y’ḥashev].

אמר ליה רב אשי לרב מרי: לאו שאין בו מעשה הוא, וכל לאו שאין בו מעשה – אין לוקין עליו! אמר ליה: רבי יהודה היא, דאמר:

Rav Ashi said to Rav Mari: But it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, and the principle is that for transgressing any prohibition that does not involve an action one is not flogged. Rav Mari said to him: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: For transgressing a prohibition that does not involve an action one is flogged.

לאו שאין בו מעשה – לוקין עליו.

מתני׳ זה הכלל: כל השוחט, והמקבל, והמהלך, והזורק; לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול, ולהקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר; כזית; חוץ למקומו – פסול, ואין בו כרת. חוץ לזמנו – פגול,

MISHNA: This is the principle: With regard to anyone who slaughters the animal, or who collects the blood, or who conveys the blood, or who sprinkles the blood, with intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, e.g., the meat of the offering, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, if his intent was to partake of or to burn the measure of an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it. If his intent was to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it, provided that the permitting factor, the blood, is sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.

וחייבין עליו כרת; ובלבד שיקריב המתיר כמצותו.

כיצד קרב המתיר כמצותו? שחט בשתיקה, קבל והלך וזרק חוץ לזמנו; או ששחט חוץ לזמנו, וקבל והלך וזרק בשתיקה; או ששחט וקבל

How is the permitting factor sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one slaughtered the animal in silence with no specific intent, and he collected and conveyed and sprinkled the blood with intent to burn or partake of the offering beyond its designated time; or if one slaughtered it with intent to burn or partake of the offering beyond its designated time, and he collected and conveyed and sprinkled the blood in silence; or if one slaughtered the animal and collected and conveyed and sprinkled the blood with intent to burn or partake of the offering beyond its designated time, that is the case where one sacrifices the permitting factor in accordance with its mitzva.

והלך וזרק חוץ לזמנו – זהו שמקריב המתיר כמצותו.

כיצד לא קרב המתיר כמצותו? שחט חוץ למקומו, קבל והלך וזרק חוץ לזמנו; או ששחט חוץ לזמנו, קבל והלך וזרק חוץ למקומו; או ששחט

How is the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one slaughtered the animal with intent to burn it or partake of it outside its designated area, and he collected and conveyed and sprinkled the blood with intent to burn it or partake of it beyond its designated time; or if one slaughtered the animal with intent to burn it or partake of it beyond its designated time, and collected and conveyed and sprinkled the blood with intent to burn it or partake of it outside its designated area; or if one slaughtered the animal and collected and conveyed and sprinkled the blood with intent to burn it or partake of it outside its designated area, these are cases in which the permitting factor is not sacrificed in accordance with the mitzva.

וקבל והלך וזרק חוץ למקומו (ולזמנו).

הפסח והחטאת ששחטן שלא לשמן, וקבל והלך וזרק חוץ לזמנו; או ששחט חוץ לזמנו, קיבל והלך וזרק שלא לשמן; או ששחט וקבל והלך וזרק דמן שלא לשמן –

Similarly, in the case of the Paschal offering and the sin offering that one slaughtered not for their sake, and one collected and conveyed and sprinkled the blood with intent to burn it or partake of it beyond its designated time; or if one slaughtered the Paschal offering or sin offering with intent to burn it or partake of it beyond its designated time, and he collected and conveyed and sprinkled the blood not for their sake; or that one slaughtered the Paschal offering or sin offering and collected and conveyed and sprinkled their blood not for their sake, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor is not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.

זהו שלא קרב המתיר כמצותו.

לאכול כזית בחוץ כזית למחר; כזית למחר כזית בחוץ; כחצי זית בחוץ כחצי זית למחר; כחצי זית למחר כחצי זית בחוץ – פסול, ואין בו כרת.

If one performed one of the sacrificial rites with the 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.

אמר רבי יהודה, זה הכלל: כל שמחשבת הזמן קדמה למחשבת המקום – פגול, וחייבין עליו כרת. ואם מחשבת המקום קדמה למחשבת הזמן – פסול,

Rabbi Yehuda said that this is the principle: In any case where 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. And if the intent with regard to the area preceded the intent with regard to the time, the offering is disqualified and there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it. And the Rabbis say: In both this case and that case, the offering is disqualified and there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it. 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.

ואין בו כרת. וחכמים אומרים: זה וזה – פסול, ואין בו כרת. לאכול כחצי זית להקטיר כחצי זית – כשר; שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין.

גמ׳ אמר אילפא: מחלוקת בשתי עבודות; אבל בעבודה אחת – דברי הכל עירוב מחשבות הוי. ורבי יוחנן אמר: אף בעבודה אחת מחלוקת.

GEMARA: With regard to the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis concerning a case where one has intent with regard to both time and area, Ilfa says: There is a disagreement only with regard to two sacrificial rites, i.e., where each intent was held during a different rite, but if both were held in the course of one rite, all agree that it constitutes a combination of intentions, and the offering is not rendered piggul. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even if the intentions were both held in the course of one rite, there is still a disagreement.

בשלמא לאילפא – מדרישא בשתי עבודות, סיפא נמי בשתי עבודות. אלא לרבי יוחנן – רישא בשתי עבודות, וסיפא בעבודה אחת?!

The Gemara asks: Granted, the mishna is understandable according to Ilfa, since the first clause of the mishna: If one slaughtered the animal in silence with no specific intent and collected…beyond its designated time, etc., is referring to different intentions held in the course of two sacrificial rites, one can assume that the latter clause is referring to two rites as well. But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, could it be that the first clause is referring to two rites, and the latter clause is referring to only one rite?