## Zevachim Daf 31a

###### Zevachim 31a:1
[Zevachim 31a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:1)

הַשְׁתָּא ״כְּזַיִת״ ״וּכְזַיִת״ כְּלָלָא, ״כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ״ מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Now** that Rabbi Yehuda concedes that even: **An olive-bulk and an olive-bulk,** is one **general** term, **is** it **necessary** to inquire with regard to: **An olive-bulk the next day outside?**


###### Zevachim 31a:2
[Zevachim 31a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:2)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: ״כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר בַּחוּץ״ פְּרָטָא, ״כְּזַיִת״ ״כְּזַיִת״ מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents **another version** of this discussion: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi might say that if Rabbi Yehuda maintains that even when one says: **An olive-bulk the next day outside,** each term is considered **separate, is** it **necessary** to inquire with regard to: **An olive-bulk, an olive-bulk?**


###### Zevachim 31a:3
[Zevachim 31a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:3)

אִיתְּמַר: חֲצִי זַיִת חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, חֲצִי זַיִת חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וַחֲצִי זַיִת חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – אָמַר רָבָא: ״וַיִּקַץ כְּיָשֵׁן״ הַפִּיגּוּל. וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר: עֵירוּב מַחְשָׁבוֹת הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** If one had intent to eat **half an olive-**bulk **beyond its** designated **time, half an olive-**bulk **outside its** designated **area, and** another **half an olive-**bulk **beyond its** designated **time, Rava says:** In such a case, **the *piggul***: **“Awaked as one asleep”** (Psalms 78:65), i.e., since one had intent to consume two halves of an olive-bulk beyond their designated time, these intentions are joined together. The middle thought is disregarded, since it constitutes only half the requisite measure, and the offering is rendered *piggul*. **And Rav Hamnuna says: It constitutes a combination of** improper **intentions.** The middle thought, although itself insufficient to disqualify the offering, is sufficient to interfere with the intention to consume it beyond its time, and the offering is not rendered *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 31a:4
[Zevachim 31a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן: כְּבֵיצָה אוֹכֶל רִאשׁוֹן וּכְבֵיצָה אוֹכֶל שֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּלָלָן זֶה בָּזֶה – רִאשׁוֹן. חִלְּקָן – זֶה שֵׁנִי וְזֶה שֵׁנִי. הָא חָזַר וְעֵירְבָן – רִאשׁוֹן הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: From where,** i.e., based on what, **do I state** my ruling? **As we learned** in a mishna (*Teharot* 1:5): **An egg-bulk of food** with **first-**degree impurity **and an egg-bulk of food** with second-degree impurity **that one mixed together** are collectively considered to have **first-**degree impurity. If one **separated them** into two portions, each containing a homogenous mixture, **this** portion is considered to have **second-**degree impurity **and that** portion is considered to have **second-**degree impurity. Since neither of them contains the requisite amount of food with first-degree impurity, each mixture settles to the lower level of impurity between the two foods. Rava reasoned: **But** if one **mixed them again,** they revert to **be** of **first-**degree impurity.


###### Zevachim 31a:5
[Zevachim 31a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:5)

מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: נָפֵל זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ עַל כִּכָּר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה – פְּסָלוּהָ. נָפְלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת – עֲשָׂאוּהָ שְׁנִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where** do I know this? **From** the fact **that the latter clause** of that mishna **teaches:** If **this** portion **fell by itself and that** portion fell **by itself onto a loaf of *teruma*, it disqualifies it,** as would any food with second-degree impurity. But it does not render it impure, since only foods with first-degree impurity impart impurity to other foods. But if **they both fell simultaneously** onto the loaf, **they render it** a food with **second**-degree impurity. Evidently, although the first-degree impurity lay dormant for lack of a requisite measure, it resurfaces when the rest of the measure is added, despite the fact that each portion was previously considered to have second-degree impurity. The *halakha* would be the same in the case of intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, i.e., the intent to consume half an olive-bulk outside its area does not interfere with the intent of *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 31a:6
[Zevachim 31a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:6)

וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר: הָתָם אִיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, הָכָא לֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Hamnuna says:** The cases are different. **There,** in the case of ritual impurity, **there is** a requisite **measure** present at the outset, which is divided and then recombined. **Here,** in the case of the offering, **there is no** requisite **measure** present at the outset to render it *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 31a:7
[Zevachim 31a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:7)

אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן: הָאוֹכֶל שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה, וְשֶׁנִּטְמָא בִּוְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה – מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לְטַמֵּא בַּקַּל שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶם. מַאי, לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲדַר מַלְּיֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hamnuna said: From where do I say** my opinion? **As we learned** in another mishna (*Me’ila* 17b): **The food that became ritually impure** through contact **with a primary source of ritual impurity,** thereby assuming first-degree impurity, **and** the food **that became ritually impure** through contact **with a derivative source of ritual impurity,** thereby assuming second-degree impurity, **join together** to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk **to impart impurity in accordance with the** more **lenient of the two,** i.e., as a food of second-degree impurity. **What, is it not** that they retain second-degree impurity **even if one makes up** the requisite measure **again?** If so, it can be inferred that the first-degree impurity is lost, and it does not lie dormant or resurface. Here as well, the latter intent of *piggul* cannot restore the initial intent of *piggul*, as the intent to consume half an olive-bulk outside its area interfered.


###### Zevachim 31a:8
[Zevachim 31a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:8)

דִּלְמָא דְּלָא הֲדַר מַלְּיֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Perhaps** the mishna is referring specifically to a case **where one does not complete** the requisite measure **again.**


###### Zevachim 31a:9
[Zevachim 31a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:9)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: חֲצִי זַיִת חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וַחֲצִי זַיִת חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וַחֲצִי זַיִת חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: פִּיגּוּל; אֵין חֲצִי זַיִת מוֹעִיל בִּמְקוֹם כְּזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents similar cases: **When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael, **he said:** If one had intent to eat **half an olive-bulk outside its** designated **area, and half an olive-bulk beyond its** designated **time, and** then another **half an olive-bulk beyond its** designated **time, bar Kappara teaches** that the offering is rendered ***piggul*,** since the **half an olive-bulk** with regard to the area **is not effective** to interfere **where** the intent with regard to the time concerns a whole **olive-bulk.**


###### Zevachim 31a:10
[Zevachim 31a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:10)

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: חֲצִי זַיִת חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וַחֲצִי זַיִת חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וַחֲצִי זַיִת חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: פִּיגּוּל; אֵין חֲצִי זַיִת מוֹעִיל בִּמְקוֹם כְּזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael, **he stated** a different formulation: If one had intent to eat **half an olive-bulk beyond its** designated **time, and** then another **half an olive-bulk beyond its** designated **time, and** then **half an olive-bulk outside its** designated **area, bar Kappara teaches** that the offering is rendered ***piggul*,** since the **half an olive-bulk is not effective** to interfere **where** the intent of *piggul* concerns a whole **olive-bulk.**


###### Zevachim 31a:11
[Zevachim 31a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:11)

רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי הָכִי: חֲצִי זַיִת חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וּכְזַיִת – חֶצְיוֹ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ וְחֶצְיוֹ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ; תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: פִּיגּוּל; אֵין חֲצִי זַיִת מוֹעִיל בִּמְקוֹם כְּזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi teaches** the *halakha* **in this** manner: If one had intent to eat **half an olive-bulk beyond its** designated **time, and** then intended with regard to a whole **olive-bulk** to eat **half of it outside its** designated **area and half of it beyond its** designated **time, bar Kappara teaches** that the offering is rendered ***piggul*,** because the **half an olive-bulk is not effective** to interfere **where** the intent of *piggul* concerns a whole **olive-bulk.**


###### Zevachim 31a:12
[Zevachim 31a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: חִישֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּהוּ כְּלָבִים לְמָחָר – פִּיגּוּל; דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת אִיזֶבֶל יֹאכְלוּ הַכְּלָבִים בְּחֵלֶק יִזְרְעֶאל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yannai says:** If one **had intent that dogs would eat** the offering **the next day,** it is rendered ***piggul*, as it is written: “And the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel”** (II Kings 9:10). The verse indicates that consumption by dogs is considered eating.


###### Zevachim 31a:13
[Zevachim 31a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:13)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חִישֵּׁב שֶׁתֹּאכְלֵהוּ אֵשׁ לְמָחָר, דִּכְתִיב: ״תְּאׇכְלֵהוּ אֵשׁ לֹא נֻפָּח״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפִיגּוּל?! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי; וְהָתְנַן: לֶאֱכוֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר חֲצִי כְּזַיִת – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ami objects to this: If that is so,** then if one **had intent that** non-sacred **fire would consume it the next day, as it is written: “A fire not blown shall consume him”** (Job 20:26), **this too** should be ***piggul*. And if you would say** that this is **indeed** so, that is difficult: **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: If his intent was **to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk** not at the appropriate time or in the appropriate area, the offering is **fit because eating and burning do not join together?**


###### Zevachim 31a:14
[Zevachim 31a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:14)

אִי דְּאַפְּקַהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה – הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּאַפְּקַהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקְטָרָה. דִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה לְחוֹד, וּלְשׁוֹן הַקְטָרָה לְחוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **If one expressed** his intention to burn the offering **in terms of consumption,** it would **indeed** join together with intention to eat. But in the mishna **here we are dealing with** a case **where he expressed it in terms of burning.** The two intentions do not join together **since terms of consumption and terms of burning are discrete** entities.


###### Zevachim 31a:15
[Zevachim 31a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:15)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: חִישֵּׁב לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת בִּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, מַהוּ? בָּתַר מַחְשָׁבָה אָזְלִינַן – דְּאִיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, אוֹ בָתַר אוֹכְלִין אָזְלִינַן – וְלֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ashi raises a dilemma:** If **one had intent that two people** would collectively **eat an olive-bulk, what is** the *halakha*? **Do we follow** the **intent,** in **which** case **there is** the requisite **measure** of an olive-bulk? **Or do we follow those who eat, and neither** eats the requisite **measure?**


###### Zevachim 31a:16
[Zevachim 31a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/31a:16)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תָּא שְׁמַע: לֶאֱכוֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: If his intent was **to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk** beyond the designated time or outside the designated area, the offering is **fit because eating and burning do not join together.**