Commentary for Zevachim 58:17

בשלמא לאילפא מדרישא בשתי עבודות סיפא נמי בשתי עבודות אלא לרבי יוחנן רישא בשתי עבודות וסיפא בעבודה אחת

AND RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED [INTENDING TO EAT THEM] AFTER TIME; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED [THEM, INTENDING TO EAT THEM] AFTER TIME, [AND] RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED FOR THE SAKE OF SOMETHING ELSE; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED, RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED FOR THE SAKE OF SOMETHING ELSE; IN THESE CASES THE MATTIR WAS NOT OFFERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all these cases there was an illegitimate intention which invalidated the sacrifice in addition to that which would render it piggul. Hence it is not piggul but only invalid, as already stated.');">¹⁶</span> [IF ONE INTENDED] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW, [OR] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The intentions being in that order.');">¹⁷</span> HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS, [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the same reason as before.');">¹⁸</span> SAID R'JUDAH, THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHERE THE INTENTION OF TIME PRECEDES THE INTENTION OF PLACE, [THE SACRIFICE] IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH; BUT IF THE INTENTION OF PLACE PRECEDES THE INTENTION OF TIME, IT IS UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah holds that an invalidating intention does not negative a piggul intention if the latter is expressed first.');">¹⁹</span> BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IN BOTH CASES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatever the order.');">²⁰</span> [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. [IF ONE INTENDS] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [WITHOUT BOUNDS OR AFTER TIME] [AND] TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [SIMILARLY]. IT IS FIT, FOR EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In intention.');">²¹</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Ilfa said: The controversy is in respect of two services, but in the case of one service all agree that it constitutes a mingling of intentions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even R. Judah agrees that where both intentions are expressed at the same service, the sacrifice is not piggul but merely unfit, even if the piggul intention preceded.');">²²</span> But R'Johanan maintained: The controversy is in respect of a single service too. As for Ilfa, it is well: since the first clause treats of two services,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is explicitly taught: IF ONE SLAUGHTERED [INTENDING TO EAT] AFTER TIME AND RECEIVED THE BLOOD ETC. WITHOUT BOUNDS.');">²³</span> the second clause too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED INTENDING TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW AND AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS.');">²⁴</span> treats of two services. But according to R'Johanan, the first clause treats of two services and the second clause of one service?

Explore commentary for Zevachim 58:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.