Zevachim 58

כפסולי המוקדשין ויפסל

as dedicated animals rendered unfit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through a blemish.');">¹</span> and so unfit; therefore it says.

ת"ל (דברים יד, כג) ואכלת לפני ה' אלהיך מעשר דגנך וגו' מקיש בכור למעשר מה מעשר אינו נפסל משנה לחבירתה אף בכור אינו נפסל משנה לחבירתה

And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God. the tithe of thy corn.

איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי בכור דלאו בר הרצאה הוא אבל קדשים דבני הרצאה נינהו אימא לא לירצו קמ"ל

and the firstlings of thy herd and of thy flock;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 23.');">²</span> the firstling is assimilated t tithe: as tithe does not become unfit through [being kept] from one year until the following, so the firstling does not become unfit through [being kept] from one year until the next? - It is necessary: You might think that this holds good only of a firstling, which is not subject to acceptance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The firstling does not come to make atonement, and therefore is not subject to 'acceptance'.');">³</span>

ואכתי מהתם נפקא (דברים כג, כב) והיה בך חטא ולא בקרבנך חטא

but [other] sacrifices which are subject to acceptance, I would say that they are not 'accepted'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If delayed. i.e., that the vower has not duly fulfilled his vow and must bring another sacrifice.');">⁴</span> Hence ['it'] informs us [that it is not so].

ובן עזאי ההוא מבעי ליה והיה בך חטא ולא באשתך חטא סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואמר רבי אלעזר ואיתימא רבי יוחנן אין אשתו של אדם מתה אא"כ מבקשין ממנו ממון ואין לו שנאמר (משלי כב, כז) אם אין לך לשלם למה יקח משכבך מתחתיך בהאי עון דבל תאחר נמי מתה קמ"ל:

Yet still it is deduced from elsewhere [viz. ,] [Thou shalt not delay to pay it.] and it will be sin in [which teaches,] but it will not be sin in thy offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the offering does not become invalid.');">⁵</span> - But we have interpreted this according to Ben 'Azzai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text.');">⁶</span>

אחרים אומרים במחשבה הוא נפסל ואינו נפסל בשלישי ורבי אליעזר לא יחשב מאי עביד ליה

[as teaching 'and it will be sin in thee', but it will not be sin in thy wife. For you might think that can argue.

מיבעי ליה לכדרבי ינאי דאמר רבי ינאי מנין למחשבות שמוציאות זו מזו שנאמר לא יחשב לא יערב בו מחשבות אחרות

Since R'Eleazar - others state, R'Johanan - said: A man's wife does not die save when money is demanded from him and he lacks it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The money which he robbed.');">⁷</span> for it says.

ורב מרי מתני אמר רבי ינאי מנין למחשב בקדשים שהוא לוקה ת"ל (ויקרא ז, יח) לא יחשב

If thou hast not wherewith to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXII, 27; 'thy bed' is understood to mean 'thy wife'.');">⁸</span> she also dies on account of this sin of [violating the injunction] 'Thou shal not delay'; [hence Scripture] informs us [that it is not so].'

א"ל רב אשי לרב מרי לאו שאין בו מעשה הוא וכל לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו אמר ליה רבי יהודה היא דאמר לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו:

Others say, "It shall not be imputed" [teaches that] it becomes invalid through imputation [intention], but it does not become invalid through [being eaten on] the third day.' Now, how does R'Eliezer utilise this [text], 'it shall not be imputed'? - He needs it for the teaching of R'Jannai.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> 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 וחייבין עליו כרת ובלבד שיקריב המתיר כמצותו

For R'Jannai said: How do we know that [illegal] intentions negative each other? Because it says, 'it shall not be imputed', [which means,] other [illegal] intentions shall not be mingled therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra a top.');">⁹</span>

כיצד קרב המתיר כמצותו שחט בשתיקה קבל והלך וזרק חוץ לזמנו או ששחט חוץ לזמנו וקבל והלך וזרק בשתיקה או ששחט וקבל והלך וזרק חוץ לזמנו זהו שמקריב המתיר כמצותו

R'Mari recited it [thus]: R'Jannai said: How do we know that he who purposes an [illegitimate] intention in respect of sacrifices is flagellated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As are all who violate a negative injunction.');">¹⁰</span> Because it says.

כיצד לא קרב המתיר כמצותו שחט חוץ למקומו קבל והלך וזרק חוץ לזמנו או ששחט חוץ לזמנו קבל והלך וזרק חוץ למקומו או ששחט וקבל והלך וזרק חוץ למקומו (ולזמנו)

Lo yehasheb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It shall not be imputed. But with a different vowelling this reads lo yahshob, he (the priest) shall not intend (to eat it after time) , and thus this becomes a negative injunction.');">¹¹</span> Said R'Ashi to R'Mari: But it is a negative injunction not involving an action,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Talking is not considered an action.');">¹²</span>

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 זהו שלא קרב המתיר כמצותו

and one is not flagellated on account of a negative injunction which does not involve action? - This is according to R'Judah, he replied, who maintained: One is flagellated on account of a negative injunction which does not involve action. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: HE WHO SLAUGHTERS OR RECEIVES [THE BLOOD], OR CARRIES [IT] OR SPRINKLES [IT].

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

[INTENDING] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THAT WHICH IS NORMALLY EATEN OR TO BURN [ON THE ALTAR] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THAT WHICH IS NORMALLY BURNT WITHOUT BOUNDS, [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT IT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH; [INTENDING TO EAT OR BURN] AFTER TIME, IT IS PIGGUL AND INVOLVES KARETH, PROVIDED THAT THE MATTIR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The enabler, i.e., the blood, through the sprinkling of which the sacrifice may be eaten.');">¹³</span> IS OFFERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that no other illegitimate intention is expressed.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רבי יהודה זה הכלל כל שמחשבת הזמן קדמה למחשבת המקום פגול וחייבין עליו כרת ואם מחשבת המקום קדמה למחשבת הזמן פסול ואין בו כרת וחכמים אומרים זה וזה פסול ואין בו כרת לאכול כחצי זית להקטיר כחצי כזית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין:

HOW IS THE MATTIR OFFERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW [APART FROM THAT]? IF ONE SLAUGHTERED IN SILENCE, AND RECEIVED, OR SPRINKLED, [INTENDING TO EAT THE FLESH] AFTER TIME; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED [INTENDING TO EAT] AFTER TIME, AND RECEIVED, WENT AND SPRINKLED IN SILENCE; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED, AND RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED [INTENDING TO EAT] AFTER TIME; THAT IS OFFERING THE MATTIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר אילפא מחלוקת בשתי עבודות אבל בעבודה אחת דברי הכל עירוב מחשבות הוי ורבי יוחנן אמר אף בעבודה אחת מחלוקת

HOW IS THE MATTIR NOT OFFERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW? IF ONE SLAUGHTERED [INTENDING TO EAT] WITHOUT BOUNDS, [AND] RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED [WITH THE INTENTION OF EATING] AFTER TIME; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED [INTENDING TO EAT] AFTER TIME, [AND] RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED [INTENDING TO EAT] WITHOUT BOUNDS; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED, RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED [INTENDING TO EAT] WITHOUT BOUNDS; IF ONE SLAUGHTERED THE PASSOVER-OFFERING OR THE SIN-OFFERING FOR THE SAKE OF SOMETHING ELSE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As different sacrifices, whereby they are invalid, supra 2a.');">¹⁵</span>

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?