Zevachim 31aזבחים ל״א א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Zevachim 31a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
31aל״א א
1 א

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?

2 ב

(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?

3 ג

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.

4 ד

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.

5 ה

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.

6 ו

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.

7 ז

אמר רב המנונא מנא אמינא לה דתנן האוכל שנטמא באב הטומאה ושנטמא בולד הטומאה מצטרפין זה עם זה לטמא בקל שבשניהם מאי לאו אע"ג 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.

8 ח

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.

9 ט

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.

10 י

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.

11 יא

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.

12 יב

אמר רבי ינאי חישב שיאכלוהו כלבים למחר פיגול דכתיב (מלכים ב ט, י) 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.

13 יג

מתקיף לה רבי אמי אלא מעתה חישב שתאכלהו אש למחר דכתיב (איוב כ, כו) תאכלהו אש לא נופח ה"נ 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?

14 יד

אי דאפקה בלשון אכילה ה"נ 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.

15 טו

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?

16 טז

אמר אביי ת"ש 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.