Commentary for Zevachim 69:18

לימא מסייע ליה ושוים שאם חישב באכילת פרים ובשריפתן לא עשה ולא כלום מאי לאו הא חישב באימורים נתפגלו פרים לא

IF ONE WRINGS [THE NECKS OF] DOVES, [INTENDING] TO EAT THEIR EGGS WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER [THEM] PIGGUL. ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE MILK OF SACRED ANIMALS OR THE EGGS OF DOVES IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Eleazar said: If [the priest] expressed a piggul intention in respect of the sacrifice, the fetus [too] becomes piggul;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he who eats the fetus incurs kareth, as for eating piggul.');">²⁶</span> [if he expresses a piggul intention] in connection with the fetus, the sacrifice does not become piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He holds that the fetus is an integral part of the sacrifice, being regarded, as it were, as a limb of its mother. Nevertheless, this intention does not render the sacrifice piggul, because it is not usually eaten. The fetus itself too does not become piggul, in accordance with the MISHNAH:');">²⁷</span> If he expresses a piggul intention in respect of the offal, the crop becomes piggul; in respect of the crop, the offal does not become piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The offal is edible, but not the crop. Therefore an intention in respect of the latter is not efficacious; but an intention in respect of the former makes the whole piggul, including the crop.');">²⁸</span> If he expresses a piggul intention in respect of emurim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he slaughtered the bullocks which are burnt intending to burn the emurim on the altar after time.');">²⁹</span> the bullocks become piggul; in respect of the bullocks,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intending to eat of their flesh after time.');">³⁰</span> the emurim do not become piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is the intention to eat what is not usually eaten. The bullocks themselves do certainly not become piggul.');">³¹</span> Shall we say that the following supports him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his view that a thing can become piggul through something else, e.g., the fetus, the crop, and the flesh of the bullocks, though it cannot be the vehicle of rendering the sacrifice piggul.');">³²</span> And both agree that if he expressed an intention [of piggul] in connection with the eating of the bullocks and their burning, he has done nothing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Both' refers to R. Simeon and the Rabbis, v. infra 43a. The present reference is to the bullocks which were to be burnt without, and they agree that if the priest expressed an intention during one of the blood services to eat of the bullocks on the morrow or to burn them as required in the ash-house on the morrow, his intention is of no effect, because his intention to eat does not count, since this is not normally eaten and his intention with regard to the burning does not count either, for only an intention that the altar should consume (expressing it so, but not 'burn') counts.');">³³</span> Surely then, if however he expressed an intention concerning the emurim, the bullocks become piggul? - No:

Explore commentary for Zevachim 69:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.