Zevachim 61

השתא כזית וכזית כללא כזית למחר בחוץ מיבעיא

seeing that 'as much as an olive and as much as an olive' is a comprehensive statement, is there a question about 'as much as an olive on the morrow without'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rabbi would have replied with asperity, 'Why, even the former case is a mingling of intentions; how much more so that which you ask'.');">¹</span>

(לישנא אחרינא כזית למחר בחוץ פרטא כזית כזית מיבעיא)

It was stated: [If one declares, 'I will eat] half [as much as] in olive after time, half an olive without b and half as much as an olive after time,' - Said Raba: 'Then the piggul awaked as one asleep'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ps. LXXVIII, 65. - The first half, on finding as it were the last half, awakes from its slumber and combines with it. Thus he intends to eat as much as an olive after time; this renders it piggul and cannot be undone by the intention if eating half as much as an olive without bounds.');">²</span>

איתמר חצי זית חוץ לזמנו חצי זית חוץ למקומו וחצי זית חוץ לזמנו אמר רבא ויקץ כישן הפיגול ורב המנונא אמר עירוב מחשבות הוי

But R'Hamnuna maintained: This constitutes a mingling of intentions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is not piggul.');">³</span>

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתנן כביצה אוכל ראשון וכביצה אוכל שני שבללן זה בזה ראשון חלקן זה שני וזה שני הא חזר ועירבן ראשון הוי

Raba said: Whence do I say it?

ממאי מדקתני סיפא נפל זה בעצמו וזה בעצמו על ככר של תרומה פסלוה נפלו שניהן כאחת עשאוה שניה

Because we learnt: if one combines as much as an egg of an edible of first degree with as much as an egg of an edible of second degree, [the combination] ranks as first degree.

ורב המנונא אמר התם איכא שיעורא הכא ליכא שיעורא

If one separates them, each ranks as second degree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man who becomes unclean through contact with a corpse, and a sherez ('creeping thing') rank as principal (ab, lit., 'father') degree of uncleanness, and if a foodstuff comes into contact with them, it becomes unclean in the first degree; if that in turn comes into contact with another foodstuff, the latter is unclean in the second degree. The minimum standard of foodstuffs to defile is as much as an egg. Now, the first combination contains the standard quantity for defilement, and that in the first degree; hence the whole ranks as such. But if one divides the whole, each part contains less than the standard in the first degree; hence each part is second degree');">⁴</span>

אמר רב המנונא מנא אמינא לה דתנן האוכל שנטמא באב הטומאה ושנטמא בולד הטומאה מצטרפין זה עם זה לטמא בקל שבשניהם מאי לאו אע"ג דהדר מלייה

But if one re-combined them, [the mixture] ranks as first degree.

דלמא דלא הדר מלייה

Whence [does this follow]? - Because the second clause teaches: If each falls separately on a loaf of terumah, they render it unfit; if they both fall [o simultaneously, they render it second degree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In hullin (non-sacred food) there is nothing below second degree, so that if second degree food touches hullin, the latter remains clean. In terumah (q.v. Glos.) there is a third degree, but it goes no further, and the terumah is then called unfit, but not unclean, since it cannot defile other terumah. Now, if each of these separated masses falls on terumah consecutively, the terumah is disqualified only, since neither mass contains as much of first degree to render it second. But if they both fall on it together, as much as an egg of first degree has touched it at the same moment, and therefore the terumah becomes unclean in the second degree, so that it can render other terumah unfit. This proves that the firsts in each combine, and the same is true here.');">⁵</span>

כי אתא רב דימי אמר חצי זית חוץ למקומו וחצי זית חוץ לזמנו וחצי זית חוץ לזמנו תני בר קפרא פיגול אין חצי זית מועיל במקום כזית

But R'Hamnuna argues: There you had the requisite standard;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first place there was one mass of the requisite standard; therefore the two masses recombine.');">⁶</span>

כי אתא רבין אמר חצי זית חוץ לזמנו וחצי זית חוץ לזמנו וחצי זית חוץ למקומו תני בר קפרא פיגול אין חצי זית מועיל במקום כזית

but here the standard is absent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There was never the complete standard by itself to render it piggul.');">⁷</span>

רב אשי מתני הכי חצי זית חוץ לזמנו וכזית חציו חוץ למקומו וחציו חוץ לזמנו תני בר קפרא פיגול אין חצי זית מועיל במקום כזית

R'Hamnuna said: Whence do I say it? - Because we learnt: An edible which was defiled by a principal degree of uncleanness, and [one] which was defiled by a derivative of uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Derivative' is another name for first degree.');">⁸</span>

אמר רבי ינאי חישב שיאכלוהו כלבים למחר פיגול דכתיב (מלכים ב ט, י) ואת איזבל יאכלו הכלבים בחלק יזרעאל

combine with each other to defile according to the lesser of the two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If each contains only half the standard. Thus the combination disqualifies terumah (rendering it third) , but does not defile it (i.e., it does not render it second) .');">⁹</span>

מתקיף לה רבי אמי אלא מעתה חישב שתאכלהו אש למחר דכתיב (איוב כ, כו) תאכלהו אש לא נופח ה"נ דפיגול וכי תימא הכי נמי והתנן לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר חצי כזית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין

Surely that means even if [the standard quantity] is subsequently made up?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if one adds a first degree edible to make up to the size of an egg, yet since the combination is only a second, that portion thereof which is first does not re-awake to combine with the addition.');">¹⁰</span>

אי דאפקה בלשון אכילה ה"נ הכא במאי עסקינן דאפקה בלשון הקטרה דלשון אכילה לחוד ולשון הקטרה לחוד

- [No:] perhaps [this holds good only] when one does not make up [the standard].

בעי רב אשי חישב לאכול כזית בשני בני אדם מהו בתר מחשבה אזלינן דאיכא שיעורא או בתר אוכלין אזלינן וליכא שיעורא

When R'Dimi came, he said: [When one declares his intention of eating] half an olive without bounds and half an olive after time and [another] half an olive after time, - Bar Kappara taught: It is piggul, [because the declaration in respect of] half an olive is of no effect as against [that in respect of] an olive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the two piggul intentions (viz., to eat after time) were consecutive.');">¹¹</span>

אמר אביי ת"ש לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר כחצי זית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין

When Rabin came, he said: [If one declares his intention of eating] half as much as an olive after time and [another] half an olive after time and half an olive without bounds, - Bar Kappara taught: It is piggul, [because the declaration in respect of] half an olive is of no effect as against [that of] an olive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But only in this case. In the former case, however, when he declares his intention to eat half an olive without bounds and half an olive after time, these two intentions immediately combine, and his subsequent declaration that he will eat half an olive after time cannot upset the previous combination; hence it is not piggul. Thus we have a controversy between R. Dimi and Rabin as to Bar Kappara's teaching.');">¹²</span> R'Ashi recited it thus: [I one declares his intention to eat] half an olive after time, and an olive, half without bounds and half after time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus combining the latter two in his declaration.');">¹³</span> - Bar Kappara taught: It is piggul, [because the declaration in respect of] half an olive is of no effe as against [that of] an olive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This goes further than R. Dimi's view. For here he actually combined the latter two intentions, and yet they are separated and the two intentions concerning after time recombined.');">¹⁴</span> R'Jannai said: If one intended dogs to eat it on the morrow, it is piggul, because it is written, And the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Kings IX, 10. This proves that eating by dogs is designated eating.');">¹⁵</span> To this R'Ammi demurred: If so, if he intended fire to eat it on the morrow, is that too piggul, since it is written, A fire not blown by man shall eat [consume] him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XX, 26.');">¹⁶</span> And should you say, That indeed is so, - surely we learnt, [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [ILLEGITIMATELY] AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [ILLEGITIMATELY], IT IS FIT, BECAUSE EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE? - If he expressed [his intention] in terms of eating, that indeed would be so;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They would combine.');">¹⁷</span> here [in the Mishnah] however he expressed it in terms of burning: [hence they do not combine,] because the term eating is one thing and the term burning is another. R'Assi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text. Cur. edd: Ashi.');">¹⁸</span> asked: What if he intended as much as an olive to be eaten [illegitimately] by two men? Do we go by his intention, and there is the standard [of disqualification]; or do we go by the eaters, and there is no the standard? - Said Abaye, Come and hear: [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [ILLEGITIMATELY]. IT IS FIT, BECAUSE EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE.