Zevachim 60

אמר ליה אביי והא רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כי מגעת להו רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי בהדי הדדי לא פליגי

Said Abaye to him: Yet surely Rabbah B'Bar Hanah said in R'Johanan's name: When you bring R'Meir and R'Jose together, [you find that] they do not disagree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, as shewn anon, both reject the view that only the first statement is regarded. That being so R. Meir's ruling on substitution does not agree with R. Judah in our MISHNAH:');">¹</span> But do they not disagree? Surely they do disagree? - They disagree in what they disagree, he answered him, and they do not disagree in what they do not disagree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They disagree only in the case cited, where their controversy is explicitly stated. But they do not disagree on the general question whether a man's first statement only is to be regarded, for they both hold that a man's complete intention must be taken into account, the point at issue being what is his intention.');">²</span>

ולא פליגי והא מיפלג פליגי א"ל פליגי במאי דפליגי ולא פליגי במאי דלא פליגי

For R'Isaac B'Joseph said in R'Johanan's name: All agree that if he declared 'Let this [sanctity] fall upon the animal and after that let that [sanctity] fall upon it,' [the latter] does not fall upon it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he declared, 'Let the sanctity of this animal, dedicated for a burnt-offering, fall upon this one as its substitute, and then let the sanctity of the other dedicated for a peace-offerings fall upon it', it is not seized with the sanctity of the second, for sanctity cannot fall upon an animal which already possesses it.');">³</span> 'Let this [sanctity] not fall upon it unless the other falls upon it [too],' all agree that [the latter] does not fall upon it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he obviously intended the animal to assume both sanctities simultaneously.');">⁴</span> They disagree only where he declares, '[Let this animal be] a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for peace-offering.'

דאמר רבי יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן הכל מודים היכא דאמר תחול זו ואחר כך (אמר) תחול זו דברי הכל לא חיילא לא תחול זו אלא א"כ חלה זו דברי הכל חיילא

R'Meir holds: Since he should have said, 'A substitute for a burnt-offering and a peace-offering.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he intended both.');">⁵</span> but said [instead], 'A substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering,' yo may infer that he has indeed retracted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having declared it a substitute for the one, he retracted and made it a substitute for the other. But retraction is not permitted, and therefore it retains the first sanctity only.');">⁶</span> And R'Jose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he not allow this argument?');">⁷</span>

כי פליגי דאמר תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים רבי מאיר סבר מדהוה ליה למימר תמורת עולה ושלמים ואמר תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים שמע מינה מיהדר קא הדר ביה

- Had he declared, 'A substitute for a burnt-offering and a peace-offering,' I might have interpreted it, Half as a substitute for a burnt-offering and half as a substitute for a peace-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it could not be sacrificed at all.');">⁸</span> therefore he declared, 'A substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offerings,' to intimate that the whole should be a burnt-offering and the whole should be a peace-offerings!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Erroneously thinking that then the animal itself could be offered (presumably, as whichever sacrifice he desired, when he actually came to sacrifice it) . - Thus on the present interpretation R. Meir too does not disagree with R. Jose that you cannot regard only a man's first statement, which contradicts R. Dimi.');">⁹</span> - Said he [R'Dimi] to him [Abaye]: He [Rabbah B'Bar Hanah] said that they do not disagree, but I maintain that they do disagree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Precisely on the point whether a man's first statement only is to be regarded.');">¹⁰</span>

ור' יוסי אי אמר תמורת עולה ושלמים הוה אמינא פלגא תמורת עולה ופלגא תמורת שלמים להכי אמר תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים למימרא דכולה עולה וכולה שלמים הויא

'Ulla-others state, R'Oshaia - said: Perhaps our Babylonian colleagues know whether we learnt, 'As much as an olive. as much as an olive'; or did we learn, 'As much as an olive. and as much as an olive'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah, did the man state, 'I declare my intention to eat as much as an olive without bounds, as much as an olive after time', or, . . and as much as an olive after time'?');">¹¹</span>

אמר ליה הוא אמר לא פליגי ואנא אמינא פליגי

[The point of the question is this:] Did we learn, 'As much as an olive. as much as an olive,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah regards this as two distinct (and to some extent self-contradictory) intentions, since they are not joined by 'and'.');">¹²</span> but [if he declared,] '.

אמר עולא ואיתימא רב אושעיא אפשר ידעין חברין בבלאה כזית כזית תנן או כזית וכזית תנן

As much as an olive. and as much as an olive,' all agree that it constitutes a min of intentions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is not piggul.');">¹³</span> Or perhaps we learnt'.

כזית כזית תנן אבל כזית וכזית דברי הכל עירוב מחשבות הוי או דלמא כזית וכזית תנן דלרבי יהודה פרטא הוי וכל שכן כזית כזית

as much as an olive. and as much as an olive,' and this, in R'Judah's opinion, constitutes a detailed enumeration,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each is a separate statement, and there is no mingling of intentions. Hence R. Judah regards the first only.');">¹⁴</span> and all the more [if he declared]'.

תא שמע דבעא מיניה לוי מרבי חישב לאכול כזית למחר בחוץ מהו א"ל זו שאילה עירוב מחשבות הוי

as much as an olive. as much as an olive? ' - Come and hear, for Levi asked Rabbi: What if he intended eating as much as an olive on the morrow [after time] without bounds? Said he to him: That is indeed a question: it constitutes a mingling of intentions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in R. Judah's opinion.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר לפניו רבי שמעון ברבי לא משנתינו היא 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 הא אידך עירוב מחשבות הוי

Thereupon R'Simeon B'Rabbi observed, is this not [taught in] our Mishnah: [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT, AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; [OR] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW, AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT;' [OR] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT, HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; [OR] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW. HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT: IT IS INVALID, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. Hence it follows that the other case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., where he declares both intentions in respect of the same piece.');">¹⁶</span>

א"ל הוא שאל בי דבר חכמה ואת אמרת משנתינו לדידך דאתניתך תרתי לא קשיא לך

constitutes a mingling of intentions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why praise it then as a question worthy of asking?');">¹⁷</span> Nevertheless he asked me a profound question, he replied, though you say that it is [implied in] our<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big> Since I taught you both [cases], you find no difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I taught you both versions, viz., that he declares, 'as much as an olive . . as much as an olive'; or 'as much . . and as much', etc., and the controversy of R. Judah and the Rabbis applies to both. Hence, since the Mishnah teaches these, and not a twofold declaration in respect of the same piece, you rightly deduce that there obviously even R. Judah admits that we have a mingling of intentions.');">¹⁸</span>

לדידיה דלא אתניתיה אלא חדא ושמעינהו לרבנן דקא גרסי תרתי וסבר דידי דווקא ודידהו עירוב מחשבות הוי או דלמא דידהו דווקא ולדידי שיורי שייר לי ומדשייר לי לדידי הא שייר להו לדידהו נמי בהך

But him I taught only one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which one is explained anon.');">¹⁹</span> while he heard that the Rabbis read both versions [in the Mishnah]. Hence his doubt: was my teaching exact,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the controversy applies to one case only.');">²⁰</span>

והי אתנייה אילימא כזית וכזית אתנייה האי לאו שיורא הוא אלא כזית כזית אתנייה

whereas their [additional case] constitutes a mingling of intentions;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In my opinion, so that they read this into the Mishnah incorrectly. If so, a twofold declaration in respect of the same piece certainly constitutes a mingling of intentions.');">²¹</span> or perhaps their [version] is exact,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The controversy applies to both.');">²²</span> whilst I had simply omitted [one case when I taught him], and just as I had omitted this instance, so had they omitted the other instance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., two declarations in respect of the same piece. Hence he was right to raise the question.');">²³</span>

ותיבעי ליה כזית וכזית

Now, which [case] did he teach him? If we say [that] he taught him: '. as much as an olive.

סבר איבעי מיניה חדא דשמענא תרתי דאי בעינא כזית וכזית הא ניחא אי אמר לי כללא כ"ש כזית למחר בחוץ אלא אי אמר לי פרטא אכתי כזית למחר בחוץ קא מיבעיא לי

and as much as an olive,' [surely] that is not an omission!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the case of 'as much as an olive . . as much as an olive' follows a fortiori. If R. Judah holds that we have a detailed enumeration and no mingling of intentions even when the priest uses the copulative, how much more so when his statements are disjoined. Hence he would have understood that this too is included, but only this and no other, so that a twofold declaration in respect if the same piece would certainly be a mingling of intentions, and there would be no room for his question.');">²⁴</span> Hence he taught him, 'As much as an olive. as much as an olive.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only on this assumption is there room for his question. This proves that the reading in the Mishnah is 'as much as an olive . . as much' etc.');">²⁵</span>

אי הכי השתא נמי התינח אי אמר ליה כזית למחר בחוץ פרטא כ"ש כזית וכזית אלא אי א"ל כללא אכתי כזית וכזית מיבעי ליה

Then let him ask about 'as much as an olive. and as much as an olive'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the explanation above he was in doubt about that too.');">²⁶</span> - He reasoned: I will ask him one case from which I may infer both.

אם כן מרתח רתח

For if I ask about 'as much as an olive. and as much as an olive,' it is well if he answers me that it is a comprehensive statement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it is a mingling of intentions.');">²⁷</span> then all the more is it so [in the case of] 'as much as an olive on the morrow without'; but if he answers me that it is a detailed enumeration, then I will still have the question about 'as much as an olive on the morrow without'. If so,[the same objection can be urged] now too: it is well if he answered him that 'as much as an olive on the morrow without' constitutes a detailed enumeration, then all the more is it so in the case of 'as much as an olive and as much as an olive'. But if he answered him that it i a comprehensive statement, he would still have the question: [what about] 'as much as an olive and as much as an olive'? - If so, he [Rabbi] would have shewn asperity: