Zevachim 29a (כט.) — the Talmud in English

It shall not be considered" -

He must not combine other thoughts with it,

for a sacrifice becomes piggul only if he had the thought of “outside its time” alone, for only in this case is one liable to 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 renders the sacrifice merely disqualified but does not make it piggul, the sacrifice loses its status of piggul, and one is not liable to karet for eating it . "

Piggul" -

This

is the thought of

outside its place,

for through this thought as well the sacrifice is disqualified. "

It shall be" -

The verse made the thought of “outside its time” and the thought of “outside its place” one existence,

teaching

that although a disqualifying thought does not disqualify a sacrifice if he had in mind to eat less than an olive-bulk, nevertheless, if he had in mind to eat 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 sacrifice. "

And the person who eats of it

shall bear his iniquity" - This comes to exclude, meaning that only

one

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

but not both

of them.

And which

carries liability to karet? -

This, "

outside its time,"

since

he derives

a gezera shava of

“iniquity” -

“iniquity”

from "

notar,"

for it resembles

“outside its time”

in

a zav.

Just as one is liable to karet for eating notar, so too with regard to “outside its time.” And since “outside its time” resembles “notar,” whereas “outside its place” does not resemble it, or alternatively, the gezera shava is expounded with regard to “outside its time” and not with regard to “outside its place”

.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: According to you,

that both “outside its time” and “outside its place” are learned from the verse in the portion of Tzav, the verse “And if it is indeed eaten on the third

day”

in the portion of “You shall be holy” -

what do you expound from it,

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

Rava said to him: That verse

is needed to

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

that is "

triply suitable":

for

the sprinkling of

blood, and for

the eating of

meat, and for

the burning of

the sacrificial portions.

That is a place suitable for all three of these activities during the period when private altars were permitted: outside the Temple courtyard in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, which are eaten in the courtyard; or outside the city in the case of lesser sanctity, which are eaten throughout the city, since during the period when private altars were permitted that was a place suitable for all three activities. But if he had in mind to eat inside the Sanctuary, which is not at all a place suitable for eating meat or burning the sacrificial portions, the sacrifice is not disqualified by this thought .

And we challenge this:

I could derive

this law of the triply suitable place

from the first verse,

in the portion of Tzav, in which it states, “If it is indeed eaten,” and from which we also learned the disqualification of “outside its place.” And

since the Merciful One expressed

“outside its time” there

in the wording of "

third,"

we should learn from this with regard to “outside its place” that it must be in the triply suitable 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 a triply suitable place, is

a specific

term, indicating specifically the triply suitable place and not another place. Whereas "

piggul"

is

a general

term, indicating that a thought is effective with regard to any place,

and

it follows that

a generalization added to a specification, and other places are included

in this,

other places

where a thought concerning the place is also effective. Therefore,

it teaches us

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

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah: "

And if it is indeed eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings

it shall be piggul":

Rabbi Eliezer said: Bend your ear to hear -

When he has in mind

during one of the four sacrificial services

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

meaning that the sacrifice becomes piggul through this.

Or perhaps

the meaning of the verse is

rather

according to its plain sense,

when one eats of his sacrifice on the third day,

so that it becomes piggul on account of this !?

You have said:

It is impossible to say this, for is it conceivable to say:

After it is valid,

with all its services performed properly,

it should become disqualified again

through eating on the third day!?

Rabbi Akiva said to him,

to Rabbi Eliezer:

Yes, we find this with regard to a zav and a zava,

whose law is to count seven clean days free of discharge and immerse on the seventh day, thereby becoming pure.

And

we likewise find this with regard to a woman who saw blood on one day during the eleven days designated as her days of ziva, whose law is to be

a watcher of one day

free of blood

corresponding to the day

on which she saw blood. She may immerse already in the morning of the day that she is “watching,” since part of the day is considered like the whole day, and the beginning of the day is considered for her as the whole day with regard to her purification; she is therefore pure immediately after her immersion [although it is forbidden to engage in intercourse with her throughout the day, lest she see blood later that day, in which case she would retroactively overturn her purity],

so that

these two

are presumed pure [a zav and a zava—even before they have completed seven days;

a watcher of one day—immediately upon immersing], and

even though

nevertheless,

once they saw, they overturned

their purity retroactively. The zav and zava must begin counting seven days anew, and likewise the purity of the watcher of one day is nullified retroactively; a person or vessels that touched her on that day after she immersed, even before she saw blood, are retroactively impure on account of her.

You too should not be surprised at

this

sacrifice, which, although it was rendered valid,

with all its services performed properly,

should become disqualified again

because of eating outside its time. If so, it is possible to explain the verse according to its plain sense: If one ate of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day, it becomes piggul!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Eliezer to Rabbi Akiva: You can learn that the verse speaks of one who has in mind to eat on the third day, for

it says

later, “The one who offers it

the one who offers,”

and

we expound this to mean that

he is disqualified at the time of the offering,

meaning that his offering does not effect acceptance,

and he is not disqualified through

eating it on the

third day.

Or perhaps

the meaning of the verse

says "

the one who offers"

is rather the priest who offers it,

with a thought of piggul, who is no longer fit for the priesthood? That is, in addition to the disqualification of thought that we have learned, we should also learn this matter -

When it says "

the one who offers

it

shall not be considered,” rather than “the one who offers shall not be considered,” we learn from the word “it” an exclusion, namely,

it is speaking of the sacrifice

that is disqualified,

and it is not speaking of the priest.

Ben Azzai says:

The word “it” is expounded as follows: "

It"

what does the verse come to teach? Since it is stated "

When you make a vow,"

you shall not delay fulfilling it,"

I might have thought that even one who delays

bringing

his vow

would have his sacrifice

become

unacceptable"?

The verse teaches "

it."

And this is expounded: "

It"

means piggul,

becomes unacceptable, but one who delays his vow does not become unacceptable .

Others say:

From here we learn that the verse is speaking of one who intended to eat it on the third day, as it is stated

“It shall not be reckoned”

and this is superfluous, since it has already been stated, “It shall not be accepted”; rather, it teaches you:

It is disqualified through thought

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

but it is not disqualified on the third day.

And the verse states that one who offers it shall not reckon it with this thought.

And we challenge this:

And Ben Azzai,

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

that the verse is speaking of the sacrifice and not of the koen, from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

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

from the fact that we needed to exclude the possibility that the sacrifice is disqualified because of eating on the third day. It follows that the verse is speaking of the disqualification of the sacrifice, and not of the disqualification of the koen; for why should a koen who did not sin be disqualified because of the sin of one who ate on the third day?

And if you wish, say that it is derived from what is written

“It shall not be accepted”

and

the wording

“It shall not be accepted”

refers to a sacrifice.

This wording does not apply to the disqualification of a koen.

And we challenge this:

And Ben Azzai,

is this derivation of

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

derived from here,

from the superfluous word “it,”

?

After all,

it is derived from Others

this law!

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

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

whose year has elapsed

and is considered delayed because it is stated concerning it, “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it year by year,”ેણ