## Zevachim Daf 30a

###### Zevachim 30a:1
[Zevachim 30a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:1)

אִין; רֵישָׁא – בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲבוֹדוֹת, סֵיפָא – בֵּין בַּעֲבוֹדָה אַחַת בֵּין בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲבוֹדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Yes,** it can be explained that **the first clause** is referring **to two** sacrificial **rites,** while **the latter clause,** i.e., the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, applies **to both one rite and two rites.**


###### Zevachim 30a:2
[Zevachim 30a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:2)

תְּנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל: אִם מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן קָדְמָה לְמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״. אֶלָּא לְאִילְפָא – מַאי ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a proof: **We learned** in the mishna: **Rabbi Yehuda says** that **this is the principle: If the intent** with regard to **the time preceded the intent** with regard to **the area,** the offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** burning or partaking of **it. Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who says that the disagreement applies even to one rite, **this** is the reason **that** the *tanna* **teaches: This is the principle,** indicating that the principle is broad. **But according to Ilfa, what** is added by the phrase: **This is the principle?** The Gemara responds: This indeed poses **a difficulty** to the opinion of Ilfa.


###### Zevachim 30a:3
[Zevachim 30a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:3)

תְּנַן הָתָם: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Temura* 25b): If one had two animals standing before him, one a burnt offering and one a peace offering, and he said with regard to another non-sacred animal of his: **This** animal **is hereby the substitute of** the **burnt offering, the substitute of** the **peace offering,** then **that** animal **is the substitute of** the **burnt offering;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Zevachim 30a:4
[Zevachim 30a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אִם לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּון תְּחִילָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין; וְאִם מִשֶּׁאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה״, וְנִמְלַךְ וְאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset,** i.e., his intent was that this animal be the substitute of both a burnt offering and a peace offering, **since it is impossible to produce two designations simultaneously** and one designation must precede the other, **his statement is effective,** and the animal is the substitute of both a burnt offering and a peace offering. **But if** it was only **after he said: This** animal **is hereby the substitute of** the **burnt offering,** that **he reconsidered and said: This** animal **is hereby the substitute of** the **peace offering,** then **that** animal **is the substitute of a burnt offering** alone.


###### Zevachim 30a:5
[Zevachim 30a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:5)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים״, מַהוּ? ״לַחֲצוֹת״, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If one expressed the two intentions simultaneously and said: **This is hereby the substitute of a burnt offering and a peace offering, what is** the *halakha*? Additionally, if one specified his intention **to split** the animal between a burnt offering and a peace offering, but mentioned the burnt offering first, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Zevachim 30a:6
[Zevachim 30a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:6)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּהָא וַדַּאי מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רָבָא אֲמַר: עֲדַיִין הִיא מַחְלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: In this** case, **Rabbi Meir certainly concedes** that both types of sanctity apply to the animal. **Rava said: It is still a disagreement;** Rabbi Meir still holds in this case that since he mentioned the burnt offering first, only that sanctity applies to the animal.


###### Zevachim 30a:7
[Zevachim 30a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:7)

אָמַר רָבָא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ בְּהָא וַדַּאי מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר; הֲרֵי שְׁחִיטָה – (דלכי) [דִּכִי] ״לַחֲצוֹת״ דָּמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Abaye: According to your** opinion, **as you say** that **in this** case **Rabbi Meir certainly concedes,** one may raise an objection from the mishna, which describes a case where one performs **slaughter** with intent to eat one olive-bulk of the offering beyond its time and one olive-bulk outside its area, **which is comparable to** a case where one says: **To split,** since both intentions are held during the singular act of slaughter. **And** nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis **disagree,** and Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one attends only to the first statement, renders the animal *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 30a:8
[Zevachim 30a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא לְבַסּוֹף?! יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף; וּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ – דְּאָמַר: סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, סִימָן שֵׁנִי חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to him: Do you hold** that **slaughter is** considered to have been performed **only at** its **end,** such that it takes effect in a single instant? Actually, **slaughter is** accomplished progressively, **from beginning to end, and our mishna** is referring to a case **where one says:** I slaughter the **first *siman*,** the gullet or the windpipe, with intent to consume the offering **beyond its** designated **time,** and the **second *siman*** with intent to consume it **outside its** designated **area.**


###### Zevachim 30a:9
[Zevachim 30a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:9)

הֲרֵי קְמִיצָה – (דלכי) [דִּכִי] לַחֲצוֹת דָּמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** what about the **removal of a handful** from a meal offering with intent to eat one olive-bulk beyond its time and one outside of its area, **which is comparable to** a case where one says: **To split,** since both intentions are held during the removal, **and** nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis **disagree** with regard to it in tractate *Menaḥot* (12a)?


###### Zevachim 30a:10
[Zevachim 30a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:10)

הָתָם נָמֵי – שֶׁהִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ מִנְחָה חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, קוֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Since the mishna does not state such a dispute explicitly, one can say that their disagreement is not with regard to the removal of the handful but with regard to the burning of the two permitting factors of the meal offering, the handful and the frankincense. Accordingly, **there too,** the case is such **that** the priest **burned the handful of** the **meal offering** with intent to eat it **beyond its** designated **time,** and he burned **the handful of frankincense** with intent to eat the meal offering **outside its** designated **area.**


###### Zevachim 30a:11
[Zevachim 30a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:11)

הֲרֵי קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא – דְּלֵיכָּא לְבוֹנָה בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וּפְלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara persists: **But** what about **the handful from a meal offering of a sinner, which has no frankincense with it, and** still Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis **disagree?**


###### Zevachim 30a:12
[Zevachim 30a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:12)

לָא פְּלִיגִי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי, פְּלִיגִי בִּפְסִיעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: In that case **they do not disagree. Rav Ashi says:** Even **if you say** that **they disagree** in that case, one may say that **they disagree** specifically **with regard to** a case where the priest had different intentions during his **steps** toward the altar while holding the handful. Consequently, even this rite is divisible into separate parts.


###### Zevachim 30a:13
[Zevachim 30a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:13)

רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי כִּדְאַבָּיֵי, רַב הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן מַתְנֵי כִּדְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi** would **teach in accordance with** the opinion **of Abaye** that in a case where one explicitly mentions both intentions at once, Rabbi Meir concedes that both sanctities apply to the animal. **Rav Huna bar Natan** would **teach in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava** that even in such a case, Rabbi Meir considers only the first sanctity mentioned.


###### Zevachim 30a:14
[Zevachim 30a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:14)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אֲמַר: רַבִּי מֵאִיר – בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he said:** When **Rabbi Meir** said that if one says: This animal is hereby the substitute of a burnt offering, the substitute of a peace offering, then the animal is the substitute of a burnt offering, he **said this according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that in general, the *halakha* is to **attend** only to the **first statement.**


###### Zevachim 30a:15
[Zevachim 30a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30a:15)

דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל: אִם מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן קָדְמָה אֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in the mishna: **Rabbi Yehuda said** that **this is the principle: If the intent** with regard to **the time preceded the intent** with regard to **the area,** the offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** burning or partaking of **it.**