## Zevachim Daf 30b

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, וְהָא רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כִּי מַגְּעַתְּ לְהוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, לָא פְּלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Dimi: **But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana** say that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: When you consider their** opinions, **Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei do not disagree with one another,** i.e., neither holds that one attends only to the first statement?


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

וְלָא פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלִיגִי בְּמַאי דִּפְלִיגִי, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי בְּמַאי דְּלָא פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Dimi objected: **And** is it so that **they do not disagree? But don’t they disagree** explicitly in the mishna cited earlier? Abaye **said to him: They disagree where they disagree,** i.e., that specific case, **but they do not disagree where they do not disagree,** i.e., the underlying principle. Accordingly, one must understand the basis of their dispute in another manner.


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

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״תָּחוּל זוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ (אָמַר) תָּחוּל זוֹ״ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לָא חָיְילָא; ״לֹא תָּחוּל זוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה זוֹ״ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חָיְילָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All,** i.e., Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, **concede that** in a case **where one says: Let this** sanctity of a burnt offering **take effect and afterward let that** sanctity of a peace offering **take effect, everyone agrees** that the sanctity of a peace offering **does not take effect,** because the sanctity of the burnt offering took effect first. Likewise, if one said: **This** sanctity **shall not take effect unless that** sanctity **applies, everyone agrees** that the sanctity of a peace offering **takes effect** as well.


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

כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דְּאָמַר: ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים״ וַאֲמַר ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִיהְדָּר קָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They disagree** with regard to a case **where one says:** This animal is hereby **a substitute for a burnt offering, a substitute for a peace offering. Rabbi Meir holds: Since** if he wanted both sanctities to take effect, **he should have said: A substitute for a burnt offering and a peace offering, but he said** instead: **A substitute for a burnt offering, a substitute for a peace offering, learn from** his language that he originally intended for it to be a burnt offering, and he then **retracted** his first intention.


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

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – אִי אֲמַר: ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא פַּלְגָא תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּפַלְגָא תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים; לְהָכִי אֲמַר: ״תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – לְמֵימְרָא דְּכוּלַּהּ עוֹלָה וְכוּלַּהּ שְׁלָמִים הָוְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei** holds that **if he** had **said: A substitute for a burnt offering and a peace offering, I would say** that he means that **half** the animal should be **a substitute for a burnt offering and half a substitute for a peace offering. He therefore says: A substitute for a burnt offering, a substitute for a peace offering; that is to say that all of it is a burnt offering and all of it is a peace offering.** In any event, according to this explanation, Rabbi Meir does not necessarily hold that one attends only to the first statement.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוּא אָמַר לָא פְּלִיגִי, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Dimi **said to** Abaye: **He,** Rabba bar bar Ḥana, **says** that **they do not disagree, but I say** that **they disagree,** and Rabbi Meir holds that one attends only to the first statement, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna.


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

אָמַר עוּלָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אֶפְשָׁר יָדְעִין חַבְרִין בַּבְלָאָה – ״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״ תְּנַן, אוֹ ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ תְּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna itself: **Ulla** said, **and some say** it was **Rav Oshaya** who **said: Perhaps our colleagues, the Babylonians, know** whether **we learn** the language of the improper intention in the mishna as: I hereby slaughter the animal with intent to consume **an olive-bulk** beyond its designated time, **an olive-bulk** outside its designated area, **or we learn: An olive-bulk** beyond its designated time **and an olive-bulk** outside its designated area?


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

״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״ תְּנַן – אֲבָל ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ תְּנַן, דִּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פְּרָטָא הָוֵי – וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן ״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: Perhaps **we learn: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk,** and it is only in this case that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis. **But** if one said: **An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, everyone agrees** that **it constitutes a combination of intentions,** and the animal is not rendered *piggul*. **Or perhaps we learn: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, where according to Rabbi Yehuda** each term **constitutes a separate** term despite the use of the conjunction: And, and he holds that one attends only to the first statement, **and all the more so** if one said: **An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk.**


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

תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ לֵוִי מֵרַבִּי: חִישֵּׁב לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ, מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: זוֹ שְׁאֵילָה! עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from that **dilemma which Levi raised before Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: If **one had intent to consume an olive-bulk the next day outside** its designated area, **what is** the *halakha*? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to him: This** is an excellent **question.** The answer is that even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that this **constitutes a combination of intentions** and that the animal is not rendered *piggul*.


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

אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי: לֹא מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ הִיא?! לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר; כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ; כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר; כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. הָא אִידַּךְ – עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **said before him:** How is this an excellent question; **is it not our mishna?** As we learned in the mishna: If one expressed intent **to eat an olive-bulk outside** its designated area and **an olive-bulk the next day,** or **an olive-bulk the next day** and **an olive-bulk outside** its designated area, or **half an olive-bulk outside** its designated area and **half an olive-bulk the next day,** or **half an olive-bulk the next day** and **half an olive-bulk outside** its designated area, the offering is **disqualified and there is no** liability for ***karet* for** burning or partaking of **it.** Rabbi Yehuda disagrees only with regard to these cases; **but** in **another** case, it could easily be inferred that he concedes that **it constitutes a combination of intentions.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוּא שָׁאַל בִּי דְּבַר חָכְמָה, וְאַתְּ אָמַרְתָּ מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ?! לְדִידָךְ דְּאַתְנִיתָךְ תַּרְתֵּי – לָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to him:** Levi **asked me a matter of wisdom, and you say our mishna. For you, whom I taught two** phrasings of the mishna, both: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk, and: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, the question is **not difficult,** since my omission of this other case allows you to infer its *halakha*.


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

לְדִידֵיהּ דְּלָא אַתְנִיתֵיהּ אֶלָּא חֲדָא, וְשַׁמְעִינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּקָא גָרְסִי תַּרְתֵּי – וְסָבַר: דִּידִי דַּוְוקָא, וְדִידְהוּ עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי? אוֹ דִלְמָא דִּידְהוּ דַּוְוקָא, וּלְדִידִי שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיַּיר לִי; וּמִדְּשַׁיַּיר לִי לְדִידִי הָא – שַׁיַּיר לְהוּ לְדִידְהוּ נָמֵי בְּהָךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**For him, whom I taught only one** phrasing, **and** who **heard the Rabbis reciting two,** the question is excellent, since Levi **thought:** Perhaps **my** phrasing is **exact, and their** additional phrasing **constitutes a combination of intentions** according to all opinions. **Or perhaps their** phrasing is **exact, and my** phrasing **omitted** this case. **And** if **my** phrasing **omitted this** case, perhaps **their** phrasing **also omitted that** other case, even though it is subject to disagreement.


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

וְהֵי אַתְנְיֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ אַתְנְיֵיהּ – הַאי לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא! אֶלָּא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״ אַתְנְיֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And which** phrasing **did** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **teach** Levi? **If we say** that **he taught him: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk,** i.e., that Rabbi Yehuda still holds the terms to be distinct despite the conjunction, **this is not an omission,** since one can infer *a fortiori* that the same applies to: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk. **Rather,** it must be that **he taught him: An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk,** so that it was unclear to Levi what the *halakha* would be if one used the conjunction: And.


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

וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, why did Levi raise the dilemma with regard to the phrasing: The next day outside? **Let him raise the dilemma** with regard to the phrasing: **An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk.**


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

סְבַר: אִיבְעֵי מִינֵּיהּ חֲדָא – דְּשָׁמַעְנָא תַּרְתֵּי. דְּאִי בָּעֵינָא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ – הָא נִיחָא אִי אָמַר לִי כְּלָלָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן ״כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ״; אֶלָּא אִי אָמַר לִי פְּרָטָא – אַכַּתִּי ״כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ״ קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Levi **thought: I will raise one dilemma before him so as to learn two** *halakhot*. **As, if I ask** only with regard to: **An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, it will work out well if he says to me** that Rabbi Yehuda concedes that they constitute one **general** term, as this would apply **all the more so** if one said: **An olive-bulk the next day outside,** which is even more unified. **But if he says to me** that each term constitutes **a separate** term according to Rabbi Yehuda, then **I will still** need to **raise the dilemma** with regard to the case of: **An olive-bulk the next day outside.** I will therefore inquire with regard to the latter case.


###### Zevachim 30b:16
[Zevachim 30b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30b:16)

אִי הָכִי, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי – הָתִינַח אִי אָמַר לֵיהּ ״כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ״ פְּרָטָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״; אֶלָּא אִי אָמַר לֵיהּ כְּלָלָא, אַכַּתִּי ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so, now too, it works out well if he says to him** that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the wording: **An olive-bulk the next day outside,** is constituted of **separate** terms, as this would apply **all the more so** if one said: **An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk,** which is less unified. **But if he says to him** that it is one **general** term according to Rabbi Yehuda, then **he will still** need to **raise the dilemma** with regard to the case of: **An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk.**


###### Zevachim 30b:17
[Zevachim 30b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/30b:17)

אִם כֵּן מִרְתָּח רָתַח:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **If** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi answered in **this** manner, i.e., that Rabbi Yehuda concedes that: An olive-bulk the next day outside, is considered one term, he would unwittingly provide the answer to the other question as well. As, if Rabbi Yehuda had also conceded with regard to: An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would **become angry** with Levi for asking the wrong question and say: