Zevachim 29a — the Talmud in English

It shall not be reckoned" - ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

He must not mix other thoughts into it,

for the offering becomes pigul only if he had in it the thought of “outside its time” alone, for only for this is there liability for karet for eating it. But if, in addition to the thought of “outside its time,” he had another disqualifying thought, such as the thought of “outside its place,” which does not make it pigul but merely disqualifies it, the offering leaves the status of pigul, and there is no liability for karet for eating it. "

Pigul" -

This

thought of

outside its place,

for through this as well the offering is disqualified. "

Shall be" -

The verse made the thought of “outside its time” and the thought of “outside its place” one entity.

It teaches

that although a disqualifying thought does not disqualify if he thought to eat a measure of less than an olive-bulk, nevertheless, if he thought to eat a measure of approximately half an olive-bulk “outside its place” and half an olive-bulk “outside its time,”

they combine

the two thoughts

with one another

to disqualify the offering. "

And the person who eats of it

shall bear his iniquity" - this comes to exclude, for only

one

of these two disqualifications, “outside its place” and “outside its time,” carries liability for karet for its eating,

but not two

of these.

And which

is the one for which he is liable for karet? -

This

“outside its time,”

since

he derives

a gezera shava of

“iniquity” -

“iniquity”

from

“left over,”

for it resembles it

in “outside its time”

in

the slaughtering of the offering. Just as for notar there is liability for karet for eating it, so too for “outside its time.” And since “outside its time” resembles “left over,” whereas “outside its place” does not resemble it, or we apply the gezera shava to “outside its time” and not to “outside its place.”

".

Earlier, at the beginning of the discussion, Rava derived “outside its time” and “outside its place” from this verse, and the Gemara asked why he preferred to derive the liability for karet with regard to “outside its time,” since it would be preferable to derive it with regard to “outside its place” [since the word “of it,” which excludes one of them from karet, is adjacent to the word “pigul,” from which we learned “outside its place”]. The Gemara did not answer with this answer—that it is preferable to derive karet with regard to “outside its time” because it resembles notar in the slaughtering of the offering—for at that point the Gemara still did not know that the source of the liability for karet was from notar.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: According to you,

who hold that both “outside its time” and “outside its place” are learned from the verse in the portion of Tzav, the verse “And if it shall surely be eaten on the

third”

in the portion of “You shall be holy” -

what do you derive from it?

For it is not needed for “outside its place”!

Rava said to him: That verse

is needed for

teaching you that the thought of “outside its place” disqualifies only if he thought to eat in a place

that would be

“triply applicable,”

in

the sprinkling of

blood, and in

the eating of

meat, and in

the burning of

the sacrificial portions.

That is, a place fit for these three things during the period when private altars were permitted: outside the Temple courtyard in the case of most holy offerings eaten in the courtyard, or outside the city in the case of lesser sanctity offerings eaten throughout the entire city, since during the period when private altars were permitted this was a place fit for all three of these things. But if he thought to eat inside the Sanctuary, which is not a place fit for eating meat and burning the sacrificial portions at all, the offering is not disqualified by this thought.

And we challenge this:

Let me derive

this law of the triply applicable place

from the first verse,

in the portion of Tzav, in which it says “if it shall surely be eaten,” and from it we also learned the disqualification of “outside its place”;

and since the Merciful One expressed

“outside its time” there

in the expression

“third,”

we should learn from this concerning “outside its place” that it must be in the triply applicable place!?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: I stated this teaching

to

Rav Mattana

and asked him this question, and

he said to me: If

we were to expound

from there,

from the portion of Shemini,

I would have thought

to expound as follows:

“Third,”

whose meaning is the triply applicable place, is

a particular,

for specifically the triply applicable place and not another place. Whereas

“pigul”

is

a general,

meaning that a thought is effective with regard to every place,

and

it would follow that

a general principle added to a particular, and other places were included,

through this

other places,

so that the thought concerning the place would be effective in them as well. Therefore

it teaches us

the word “third” in the portion of Tzav, that a thought is effective only with regard to the triply applicable place.

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah:

“And if it shall surely be eaten of the meat of his peace-offering sacrifice”

it shall be pigul:

Rabbi Eliezer said: Incline your ear to hear -

when thinking

during one of the four services of the offering, with the intention

“to eat of his sacrifice on the third day,” the verse is speaking,

for through this the offering becomes pigul.

Or is it not

the meaning of the verse

rather

according to its plain sense,

when eating of his sacrifice on the third day,

so that it becomes pigul because of this !?

You have said,

it is impossible to say so, for is it possible to say:

After it is valid,

with all its services performed properly,

it should return and become disqualified

through eating on the third day!?

Rabbi Akiva said to him

to Rabbi Eliezer:

Yes, we find this with a man with a flux and a woman with a flux,

whose law is to count seven clean days from the flux, immerse on the seventh day, and become pure.

And

so too we find with a woman who saw blood on one day during one of the eleven days fit to be days of her flux, that her law is to be

one who observes a day

clean of blood

corresponding to the day

on which she saw blood, and she may already immerse in the morning of the day that she “observes,” since part of the day is like the whole day, and the beginning of the day is considered for her as the whole day with regard to her purification, and she is pure immediately after her immersion [except that it is forbidden to have relations with her throughout the entire day, lest she see blood later in the day, in which case she would invalidate her purity retroactively],

for

these two

are presumed pure [

a man with a flux and a woman with a flux - even before they have completed seven days; one who observes a day - immediately when she immersed],

and

even so,

once they saw, they invalidated

their purity retroactively. The man with a flux and the woman with a flux must begin counting seven days from the beginning, and likewise the purity of the one who observes a day is annulled retroactively; and a person or vessels that touched her on that day after she immersed, even before she saw, are impure because of her retroactively.

You too should not wonder about

an offering

that, even though it was made valid,

all its services having been performed validly,

should return and become disqualified

because of eating outside its time. If so, it is possible to interpret the verse according to its plain sense: if he ate of the meat of the sacrifice on the third day, it thereby becomes pigul!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Eliezer to Rabbi Akiva: You can learn that the verse is speaking of one who thinks to eat on the third day, for

it says

afterward, “It shall not be accepted by

the one who offers,”

and

we expound through this that

at the time of offering it becomes disqualified,

meaning that its offering does not effect acceptance,

and it does not become disqualified through

eating it on the

third day.

Or is it not

the intention of the verse when it

says

“the one who offers”

rather this is the priest who offers it,

with a thought of pigul, who is no longer fit for the priesthood; that is, in addition to the disqualification of the thought that we have learned, this matter too is learned -

When it says

“the one who offers”

it

“shall not be reckoned,” and it did not write “the one who offers shall not be reckoned,” we learn from the word “it” as an exclusion, and say:

It is speaking of the sacrifice,

which becomes disqualified,

and it is not speaking of the priest.

Ben Azzai says:

The word “it” is expounded as follows:

“It,”

what does the verse teach by saying this? Since it is stated,

“When you make a vow,”

“you shall not delay fulfilling it,”

one might have thought that even one who delays

bringing

his vow

would have his offering

be

“not accepted”?

The verse teaches

“it.”

And we expound

“it,”

that is, pigul,

is “not accepted,” but one who delays his vow is not “not accepted.”

Others say:

From here we learn that Scripture speaks of one who thinks to eat on the third day, as it is said,

“It shall not be reckoned”

and this is superfluous, for it has already been said, “It shall not be accepted,” but to teach you:

It is disqualified through thought

which is expressed by the wording “It shall not be reckoned,”

and it is not disqualified on the third day.

And Scripture said: the one who offers it shall not be reckoned with this thought.

And we raise an objection:

And Ben Azzai,

who expounded from the word “it” to exclude one who delays his vow, this law

that the verse speaks of the sacrifice and does not speak of the priest—from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

If you wish, say: he derives it from Others,

from the fact that we needed to exclude that the sacrifice is not disqualified on account of eating on the third day, it must be established that the verse speaks of the disqualification of the sacrifice, and not of the disqualification of the priest, for why should a priest who did not sin be disqualified because of the sin of one who eats on the third day?

And if you wish, say: from what is written

“It shall not be accepted,”

and

the language of

“It shall not be accepted,”

is that of a sacrifice.

And this language does not apply to the disqualification of a priest.

And we raise an objection:

And Ben Azzai,

but is this exposition of

“‘It’ is included in ‘It shall not be accepted,’ but one who delays his vow is not included in ‘It shall not be accepted’”

derived from here,

from the superfluity of the word “it,”

derived?

For

it is derived from Others

this law!

As it is taught: Others say: Could it be that a firstborn

of a pure animal, whose mitzva is to be offered within its year,

whose year has passed

and the delay is considered because it is said, “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it year by year,”