## Zevachim Daf 29a

###### Zevachim 29a:1
[Zevachim 29a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:1)

לֹא יְעָרֵב בּוֹ מַחְשָׁבוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
indicates that to render an offering *piggul*, the priest **does not mix other** improper **intentions [*maḥashavot*] with** intent of *piggul*. If he has more than one type of improper intent, the offering is disqualified, but it is not rendered *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 29a:2
[Zevachim 29a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:2)

״פִּגּוּל״ – זֶה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When the verse states: **“*Piggul*,” this is** referring to an offering that one had intent to consume **outside its** designated **area.**


###### Zevachim 29a:3
[Zevachim 29a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:3)

״יִהְיֶה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And since the verse states: **“It shall be,”** and not: They shall be, this **teaches that** intent to consume half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time and intent to consume half an olive-bulk outside its designated area **join together with one another** to constitute the minimum measure required to disqualify the offering.


###### Zevachim 29a:4
[Zevachim 29a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:4)

״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת מִמֶּנּוּ״ – אֶחָד וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם; וְאֵיזֶה? זֶה חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – דְּגָמַר ״עָוֹן״–״עָוֹן״ מִנּוֹתָר, דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ בְּז״ב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Finally, when the verse states: **“And the soul that eats of it** shall bear his iniquity,” the term “of it” indicates that only **one** of the above disqualifications carries the penalty of *karet*, **but not two** of them. **And which is this?** It is intent to consume the offering **beyond its** designated **time, as** one **derives** by way of verbal analogy between **“iniquity”** and **“iniquity” from *notar*** (Leviticus 19:8), that “bear his iniquity” means that one is liable to receive *karet*. The comparison is apt **since** *notar* **is similar to** intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time **in** that both prohibitions share the features mentioned above that form the acronym: ***Zayin*, *beit*.**


###### Zevachim 29a:5
[Zevachim 29a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: לְדִידָךְ, ״שְׁלִישִׁי״ דְּפָרָשַׁת ״קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ״ – מַאי דָּרְשַׁתְּ בֵּיהּ? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁיְּהֵא מְשׁוּלָּשׁ בְּדָם, בְּבָשָׂר וּבְאֵימוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Rava: According to your** opinion, in **what** way do **you interpret** the reference to the **third** day (Leviticus 19:7) **in the** Torah **portion** that begins: **“You shall be holy”?** Rava responded: **That** verse is **necessary to** teach **that** a given **location** is considered to be outside the offering’s designated area only if it **is** so **in three ways,** i.e., outside the permitted limits **of** the **blood, of** the **meat, and of** the **sacrificial portions.**


###### Zevachim 29a:6
[Zevachim 29a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:6)

תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִקְרָא קַמָּא: ״אִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל״ – מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן ״שְׁלִישִׁי״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why not **let me derive** that *halakha* **from the first verse:** “And **if** any of the flesh of his peace offerings **be at all eaten** on the third day” (Leviticus 7:18), **since the Merciful One expresses** that verse as well **with the term “third”?** Since Rava derives the disqualification of intent to consume an offering outside its designated area from this verse, why not let him derive this *halakha* from the verse as well?


###### Zevachim 29a:7
[Zevachim 29a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:7)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב מַתְנָה; אָמַר לִי: אִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: ״שְׁלִישִׁי״ – פְּרָט, ״פִּגּוּל״ – כְּלָל; וְנַעֲשֶׂה כְּלָל מוּסָף עַל הַפְּרָט, וְאִיתְרַבּוֹ שְׁאָר מְקוֹמוֹת; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: I stated** this ***halakha* before Rav Mattana,** and **he said to me: If** one were to derive this *halakha* only **from there** (Leviticus 7:18), **I would say:** The term **“third”** is **a detail,** and the term **“*piggul*”** is **a generalization, and** whenever a detail is followed by a generalization, **the generalization becomes an addition to the detail, and** consequently, all **other areas are included** as well. The additional verse **teaches us** that the *halakha* includes only those areas that are outside in three ways.


###### Zevachim 29a:8
[Zevachim 29a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:8)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו״ – אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כּוֹף אׇזְנְךָ לִשְׁמוֹעַ – בִּמְחַשֵּׁב לֶאֱכוֹל מִזִּבְחוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאוֹכֵל מִזִּבְחוֹ לְיוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי? אָמַרְתָּ: אַחַר שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר, יַחְזוֹר וְיִפָּסֵל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** with regard to the verse: **“And if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten** on the third day, it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 7:18): **Rabbi Eliezer said: Bend your ear to hear** the true meaning of the verse: **The verse is speaking of one who intends to partake of his offering on the third day. Or** perhaps it is referring **only to** one **who** actually **partakes of his offering on the third day,** per the straightforward meaning of the verse? But that cannot be; would **you say** that **after** the offering **is fit** for the first two days, **it should then be disqualified** retroactively by being eaten on the third day?


###### Zevachim 29a:9
[Zevachim 29a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:9)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הֵן! מָצִינוּ בְּזָב וְזָבָה וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם – שֶׁהֵן בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ סָתְרוּ; אַף אַתָּה אַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל זֶה – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּכְשַׁר, שֶׁיַּחְזוֹר וְיִפָּסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yes,** it could be disqualified retroactively. After all, **we find with regard to a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [*zav*], or a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [*zava*], or a woman who observes** a clean **day for a day** when she experiences a discharge, **that they** all **have the presumptive status of purity** after immersing. **But once they have seen** another discharge the same day, **they have negated** this status retroactively, and everything they had touched after immersing becomes impure. Therefore, **you as well should not be surprised about this** offering consumed beyond its designated time, **that even though it was rendered fit, it may then be disqualified** retroactively.


###### Zevachim 29a:10
[Zevachim 29a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״הַמַּקְרִיב״ – בִּשְׁעַת הַקְרָבָה הוּא נִפְסָל, וְאֵינוֹ נִפְסָל בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״הַמַּקְרִיב״ אֶלָּא זֶה כֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֹתוֹ״ – בַּזֶּבַח הוּא מְדַבֵּר, וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר בַּכֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Eliezer **said to him: But** the same verse **says: “He who offers** it,” indicating that the offering **is disqualified at the time of** its **offering, and it is not disqualified on the third** day. **Or** perhaps when the verse **says: “He who offers** it,” **this** is referring **only** to **the priest who sacrifices** the offering, indicating that he is disqualified. But if so, it would have been enough for the verse to state: He who offers shall not be credited. Therefore, **when it states** instead: “Neither shall it be credited to he who offers **it,”** this indicates that the verse **is speaking of the offering, and it is not speaking of the priest.**


###### Zevachim 29a:11
[Zevachim 29a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:11)

בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: ״אֹתוֹ״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תְאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ״ – יָכוֹל אַף מְאַחֵר נִדְרוֹ בְּלֹא יֵרָצֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֹתוֹ״ – אוֹתוֹ בְּלֹא יֵרָצֶה, וְאֵין הַמְאַחֵר נִדְרוֹ בְּלֹא יֵרָצֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ben Azzai says: Why** must **the verse state: “It”?** It is necessary **because** elsewhere **it is stated:** “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, **you shall not delay paying it;** for the Lord your God will require it from you, and it will be sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:22). One **might** have thought that **even** one who **is late** in fulfilling **his vow** is included **in: “It shall not be accepted”** (Leviticus 7:18). Therefore, **the verse states: “It,”** to indicate that **it,** an offering rendered *piggul*, **is** included **in** the *halakha* of: **“It shall not be accepted,” but** the animal of **one who is late** in fulfilling **his vow is not** included **in** the *halakha* of: **“It shall not be accepted.”**


###### Zevachim 29a:12
[Zevachim 29a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:12)

אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: ״לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב״ – בְּמַחְשָׁבָה הוּא נִפְסָל, וְאֵינוֹ נִפְסָל בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
***Aḥerim* say:** One can conclude that the verse (Leviticus 7:18) is referring to improper intention rather than improper consumption from the phrase **“neither shall it be credited [*yeḥashev*],”** which indicates that the offering **is disqualified by** improper **intention [*maḥashava*], and it is not disqualified** by consumption **on the third** day.


###### Zevachim 29a:13
[Zevachim 29a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:13)

וּבֶן עַזַּאי – דִּבְזֶבַח הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ בְּכֹהֵן, מְנָא לֵיהּ? אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדַּאֲחֵרִים, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִדִּכְתִיב ״לֹא יֵרָצוּ״ וְ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״ – זִיבְחָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And ben Azzai,** who interprets the term “it” as excluding vows that were fulfilled late, **from where does he** derive **that the verse is speaking of** the **offering and not of** the **priest?** The Gemara responds: **If you wish, say** that **he derives it from** the statement **of *Aḥerim*** that the verse rules out disqualification on the third day itself. This would be necessary only if the verse is referring to the offering and not the priest. **Or, if you wish, say** instead: **From** the fact **that it is written: “They shall not be accepted”** (Leviticus 22:25), **and: “It shall not be accepted”** (Leviticus 7:18), it is evident that the verse **is** referring to **an offering,** which may be accepted or may not be accepted.


###### Zevachim 29a:14
[Zevachim 29a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/29a:14)

וּבֶן עַזַּאי – אוֹתוֹ בְּ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״ וְאֵין מְאַחֵר נִדְרוֹ בְּ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״, מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא?! מִדַּאֲחֵרִים נָפְקָא! דְּתַנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: יָכוֹל יְהֵא בְּכוֹר שֶׁעִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to the statement of **ben Azzai** that one derives from the word “it” that **it,** i.e., *piggul*, is included **in** the *halakha* of: **“It shall not be accepted,” but** the animal of one who **is late** in fulfilling **his vow is not** included **in** the *halakha* of: **“It shall not be accepted,”** is this *halakha* **derived from here? It is derived from** the statement **of *Aḥerim*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: ***Aḥerim* say:** One **might** have thought that **a firstborn** animal **whose** first **year passed,** during which time it ought to have been sacrificed, **should be**