Zevachim 57

לא יערב בו מחשבות אחרות

other intentions must not be mingled therein.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal is piggul only if this, sc. to eat it after time, was his only intention. But if he also expressed another which would disqualify the sacrifice without rendering it piggul, this intention negatives the other; cf. Mishnah on ');">¹</span> 'An abhorred thing [piggul]': this refers to [the intention of eating it] without bounds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the intention of eating it after time has already been dealt with.');">²</span>

פיגול זה חוץ למקומו

'It shall be': this teaches that they combine with each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He understands 'it shall be' to intimate that both these illegitimate intentions rank as one and combine. Thus, if he intended eating half as much as an olive after time and half as much as an olive without bounds (the standard of disqualification is an olive) the intentions combine to invalidate the sacrifice.');">³</span> 'And the soul that eateth of it': one, but not two; and which is it?

יהיה מלמד שמצטרפין זה עם זה

[the intention of eating it] after time, for the meaning of 'iniquity' is learnt from nothar, since it is similar to it in Zab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. notes supra 28b.');">⁴</span> R'Papa said to Raba: According to you.

והנפש האוכלת ממנו אחד ולא שנים ואיזה זה חוץ לזמנו דגמר עון עון מנותר דדמי ליה בז"ב

how do you interpret 'third' in the pericope.' Ye shall be holy'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is unnecessary in respect of after time, as stated supra ');">⁵</span>

אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא לדידך שלישי דפרשת קדושים תהיו מאי דרשת ביה ההוא מיבעי ליה למקום שיהא משולש בדם בבשר ובאימורין

- That is needed to teach [that the illegitimate intention must concern] a place which has a threefold function, viz. , in respect of the blood, the flesh, and the emurim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is disqualified only if he intends to eat it in a place where the blood is sprinkled, the flesh is eaten, and the emurim (q.v. Glos.) are burnt, e.g. without the Temple court. This excludes an intention to partake thereof in the hekal, since the flesh is not eaten, nor are the emurim burnt there. So Rashi. Tosaf. gives several other explanations.');">⁶</span> But I may deduce that from the earlier text, viz. , 'And if [it] be at all eaten', since the Divine Law expresses it by the word 'third'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Third' intimates after time, and in the same verse without bounds is hinted at too, as already explained. Hence 'third' here can have that same significance as is now attributed to it in the pericope 'Ye shall be holy'.');">⁷</span>

תיפוק לי מקרא קמא אם האכל יאכל מדאפקיה רחמנא בלשון שלישי

- Said R'Ashi: I reported this discussion before R'Mattenah, whereupon he answered me: If [I deduced it] from there, I would say: 'Third' is a particularization, and 'piggul' is a generalisation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'third' indicates a place with that threefold function, while piggul is a general term denoting all places.');">⁸</span> and so the generalisation becomes an addition to the particularization, and therefore other places are included too.

אמר רב אשי אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב מתנה א"ל אי מהתם הוה אמינא שלישי פרט פיגול כלל ונעשה כלל מוסף על הפרט ואיתרבו שאר מקומות קא משמע לן

Hence [the text in 'Ye shall be holy'] informs us [that it is not so]. Our Rabbis taught: 'And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten [on the third day]': R'Eliezer said: Incline your ear to hear: Scripture speaks of one who intends eating of his sacrifice on the third day.

ת"ר (ויקרא ז, יח) ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו אמר רבי אליעזר כוף אזנך לשמוע במחשב לאכול מזבחו ביום השלישי הכתוב מדבר או אינו אלא באוכל מזבחו ליום שלישי אמרת אחר שהוא כשר יחזור ויפסל

Yet perhaps that is not so, but rather [Scripture speaks] of one who eats of his sacrifice on the third day? You can answer: After it has become fit, shall it then become unfit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. If it was sacrificed with the proper intention, and so was fit, surely it cannot become retrospectively unfit because he eats it on the third day.');">⁹</span>

אמר לו רבי עקיבא הן מצינו בזב וזבה ושומרת יום כנגד יום שהן בחזקת טהרה וכיון שראו סתרו אף אתה אל תתמה על זה שאע"פ שהוכשר שיחזור ויפסל

Said R'Akiba to him: Behold, we find that a zab and a zabah and a woman 'who watches from day to day' are presumed to be clean, yet since they have a discharge they undo [their cleanness];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a zab or a zabah (q.v. Glos.) cease to discharge, they must count seven consecutive clean days without any discharge. During this period they are presumed to be clean, yet a discharge within the seven days undoes the days which have already passed and they become retrospectively unclean for that time too, and they must count seven days anew. Similarly, according to Biblical law a niddah (q.v. Glos.) can cleanse herself seven days after her menstrual flow commenced. During the following eleven days, which are called the eleven days between the menses, she cannot become a niddah again, it being axiomatic that a discharge of blood in that period is not a sign of niddah, but may be symptomatic of gonorrhoea. A discharge on one or two days within the eleven renders her unclean for that period only, and if she has a ritual bath (tebillah) the following morning she is clean. Yet if she has another discharge on the same day after the ritual bath, she is retrospectively unclean for the whole day, and retrospectively defiles any human beings or utensils with which she came into contact. Should she experience three discharges on three consecutive days within that period she becomes unclean as a zabah; hence on the first and the second days she is called 'one who watches from day to day', to see whether she will be unclean for those days only, or as a zabah.');">¹⁰</span> hence you too need not wonder at this, that after [the sacrifice] has become fit it then becomes unfit.

אמר ליה הרי הוא אומר המקריב בשעת הקרבה הוא נפסל ואינו נפסל בשלישי או אינו אומר המקריב אלא זה כהן המקריב כשהוא אומר אותו בזבח הוא מדבר ואינו מדבר בכהן

Said he to him: Lo, it says, '[unto him] offereth', [intimating that] it becomes unfit at the offering, but it does not become unfit on the third [day]. perhaps that is not so, but it says, 'him that offereth', meaning the priest who offers it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is henceforth unfit to officiate.');">¹¹</span>

בן עזאי אומר אותו מה ת"ל לפי שנא' (דברים כג, כב) לא תאחר לשלמו יכול אף מאחר נדרו בלא ירצה ת"ל אותו אותו בלא ירצה ואין המאחר נדרו בלא ירצה

When it says 'it', [Scripture] speaks of the sacrifice, and does not speak of the priest. Ben 'Azzai said: Why is 'it' stated?

אחרים אומרים לא יחשב במחשבה הוא נפסל ואינו נפסל בשלישי

Because it is said, [When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God,] thou shalt not delay to pay it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 22.');">¹²</span> You might think that also he who delays [the fulfilment of] his vow incurs [the sentence] 'it shall not be accepted' therefore it says, 'it': 'it' [piggul] is subject to 'it shall not be accepted', but he who delays his vow is no subject to 'it shall not be accepted'.

ובן עזאי דבזבח הכתוב מדבר ואינו בכהן מנא ליה אי בעית אימא נפקא ליה מדאחרים ואיבעית אימא מדכתיב לא ירצו ולא ירצה זיבחא הוא

Others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Others' often refers to R. Meir, Hor. 13b.');">¹³</span> say: 'it shall not be imputed' [teaches that] it becomes unfit through imputation [illegal intention], but does not become unfit through [being eaten on] the third [day].

ובן עזאי אותו בלא ירצה ואין מאחר נדרו בלא ירצה מהכא נפקא מדאחרים נפקא דתניא אחרים אומרים יכול יהא בכור שעיברה שנתו

Now, how does Ben 'Azzai know that Scripture speaks of the sacrifice and not of the priest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that he utilises 'it' for a different purpose.');">¹⁴</span> - I can say that he deduces it from [the exegesis of] the 'Others'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to them 'it shall not be imputed' is necessary to teach that there is no unfitness through the sacrifice being eaten on the third day. Scripture obviously does not refer to the unfitness of the priest, for if it did, how could I think that he is unfit? Not he has done wrong but the eater.');">¹⁵</span> Alternatively, I can say [that he knows this] because i is written, [it] shall not be accepted, and '[it] shall not be accepted' can only apply to the sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hebrew is not applicable to a priest.');">¹⁶</span> Now Ben 'Azzai [deduces]: 'it' is subject to 'it shall not be accepted'. but he who delays [the payment of] his vow is not subject to 'it shall not be accepted': [but] is this deduced from the present text? Surely it is deduced from [the text cited by] 'Others'? For it was taught: Others say: You might think that a firstling which passed its [first] year<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The firstling must be sacrificed within its first year. If it is not, its owner transgresses the injunction, Thou shalt not delay.');">¹⁷</span> is