Zevachim 31a — the Talmud in English

Now, [in the case of] an olive-sized portion and an olive-sized portion, it is a general rule:

you should have learned this matter from the fact that I did not teach you this formulation of an olive-sized portion and an olive-sized portion,

[so in the case of] an olive-sized portion for tomorrow outside [its time], is it necessary [to state that it is a general rule]?

For it is all the more so a general rule. Nevertheless, we learn from this that in the end Rabbi answered him without anger that an olive-sized portion for tomorrow outside [its time] is a general rule, whereas “an olive-sized portion and an olive-sized portion” we learned in the Mishna, and even in this case Rabbi Yehuda holds: one seizes the first expression.

It was stated:

he intended to eat

half an olive-sized portion outside its time;

and afterward he intended to eat

half an olive-sized portion

later

outside its place, and

afterward

half an olive-sized portion outside its time.

Rava said: “And the piggul will awaken like one who sleeps.”

The piggul awakens from its nullification [like one who awakens from his sleep]. That is: concerning the first half of an olive-sized portion, for which he intended outside its time, and which joined with a half olive-sized portion outside its place to disqualify the offering, we do not say that, since it had already joined to disqualify it, it will no longer separate from it; rather, it awakens from this joining of its, and joins with the last half of an olive-sized portion outside its time, and the designation of piggul takes effect upon the offering, while the half olive-sized portion outside its place is nullified and does not remove the offering from the status of piggul, since half an olive-sized portion is ineffective in place of an olive-sized portion.

And Rav Hamnuna said: It is a mixture of thoughts:

since the first half of an olive-sized portion outside its time joined with a half [olive-sized portion] outside its place to disqualify the offering, the last half of an olive-sized portion outside its time does not join with the first half of an olive-sized portion outside its time; rather, there is here a “mixture of thoughts” of outside its place with outside its time, and therefore the offering is disqualified.

Rava said: “From where do I say it”

that the piggul awakens?

For we learned

in tractate Taharot:

an egg-sized portion of food

that is

first

of impurity [having become impure from a primary source of impurity]

and an egg-sized portion of food

that is

second

of impurity [having become impure from a first degree of impurity]

that they mixed one with the other:

this mixture is

first

of impurity, and food or liquid that touches it becomes second of impurity. For there is here a first of impurity in the measure of an egg-sized portion, fit to render the food or liquid that touches it second of impurity. But if

they divided them,

the mixture of the two eggs, into two parts, then this part is

second

of impurity,

and

also this part is

second

of impurity, since each part of an egg-sized portion is composed and mixed of first of impurity and second of impurity. Thus neither of them contains an egg-sized measure of first of impurity, which is the measure fit to render others impure; therefore their law is that of second, since half a measure of first of impurity and half a measure of second of impurity join with regard to rendering impure at the lesser degree among them, which is the second.

And the Gemara infers:

But if he again mixed them, it is first.

Since now the half-egg of the first of impurity in this part has found the half-egg of the first of impurity in the other part, it joins with it and awakens from its joining with the half-egg of the second of impurity. And the same applies to piggul: although a half olive-sized portion outside its time joined with a half olive-sized portion outside its place, it awakens and joins with the last half olive-sized portion outside its time, which is its kind.

And the Gemara proves its inference:

From where [is this so]? From that which it teaches in the latter clause: [if] it fell

a part

this

of the divided mixture

by itself, and

a part

this by itself, onto a loaf of teruma:

their falling was not at once, but one after the other, and they did not remain upon it together; they did not render it impure, but only

disqualified it,

making it third of impurity, and not second [a third of impurity is called “disqualified,” since it does not render teruma further impure], since there is here no measure of an egg of first that would make it second.

But if

both fell at once

upon the loaf of teruma—and even if they fell upon it one after the other, in such a manner that the second part fell while the first part was lying upon it—

they made it second.

For the previous joining was nullified, and now the first of impurity in this part and the first of impurity in the other part joined with one another, and there is here a measure of an egg of first of impurity, fit to render the teruma impure and make it second. It is proved from here that we say, “The piggul will awaken like one who sleeps.”

And Rav Hamnuna said:

This cannot be proved from the beraita, because

there

with regard to impurity, from the outset, before the two parts were mixed,

there is a measure

of an egg of first of impurity in the one part. Therefore, although after they were mixed the first was divided, nevertheless, when he again mixed it, its former designation returned upon it, and it is first of impurity as it had been. But

here,

with regard to piggul,

there is no measure:

for initially, the first half olive-sized portion outside its time and the half olive-sized portion outside its place had not the designation of piggul, but only the designation of disqualification. Therefore, even when another half olive-sized portion outside its time subsequently joined [with them], the designation of disqualification does not depart, and the designation of piggul does not take effect upon it.

Rav Hamnuna said: “From where do I say it”

that when he intended [to eat] half an olive-sized portion outside its time and half an olive-sized portion outside its place, there is here a mixture of thoughts, and the thought of the half olive-sized portion outside its time will not be effective to remove the designation of disqualification?

From this,

for we learned

in tractate Taharot [1:5]:

food that became impure through a primary source of impurity,

and it is first of impurity,

and that became impure through an offspring of impurity,

and it is second of impurity—and there is a measure of half an egg in each one—

join with one another to render impure at the lesser degree among them.

For if they touched teruma, they disqualified it but did not render it impure, since they do not contain a measure of an egg of first of impurity.

And Rav Hamnuna proves:

Is it not [so] that even though afterward he filled it,

even after that he completed [the measure] with other food that had become impure at the degree of first of impurity, and added to this until there was in the mixture a measure of an egg of first of impurity, nevertheless the designation of first of impurity did not take effect upon the mixture, since there had never previously been here a measure of an egg of first food before the first was mixed with the second? It is proved that if initially there was no measure, and it already joined with another matter, it does not again awaken to join with its kind. One should not raise the objection: Since this concerns a case in which initially there was not an egg-sized measure in either one of them, how did they become impure? For even food of any amount receives impurity, and only in order for it to have the power to render others impure does it require an egg-sized measure.

And the Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps he did not complete it:

that it is speaking of a case in which he did not complete, from another place, the measure of an egg of the first food; but if he did complete it, it is possible that the ruling would be that the first [thought] returns and awakens.

When Rav Dimi came from

the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said:

He had the intention concerning

half an olive [of meat] outside its place, and half an olive outside its time, and half an olive outside its time; bar Kappara taught

that even if we hold according to the view of Rav Hamnuna, that one does not say, “and the piggul will awaken as one asleep,” in this case it is

piggul;

the half an olive

is not effective in place of an olive

of [meat] outside its place. And since the two thoughts of outside its time were adjacent to one another, they combine. We do not say that the first half an olive of outside its time combined with the half an olive of outside its place that preceded it, and it can no longer awaken; rather, it combines with the last half an olive of outside its time. Since what we learned from “it shall be” is that outside its place and outside its time combine with one another, that was only in a case in which the half an olive of outside its time has no other half with which to combine; but here, since it has another half adjacent to it, it combines with it.

When Ravin came from

the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said:

He had the intention concerning

half an olive outside its time, and half an olive outside its time, and half an olive outside its place;

only in this manner

bar Kappara taught

that it is

piggul,

because

the half an olive

of outside its place, which he thought of last,

is not effective in place of an olive

of piggul consisting of the two halves of outside its time, which he thought of earlier. But in Rav Dimi’s case, Ravin holds that the first half of outside its time combines with the outside its place that preceded it, and then it does not awaken to combine with the last half of outside its time, even though it is adjacent to it.

Rav Ashi

holds like Rava, that one says, “and the piggul will awaken as one asleep,” and

he taught it thus:

Even if he thought of

half an olive outside its time, and an olive “

half of it outside its place, and half of it outside its time,”

that is, he thought of the half outside its place and the half outside its time in one statement, and joined them through his statement into one olive, even in this case

bar Kappara

taught that it is

piggul, and the first half an olive outside its time combines with the last half outside its time, since it is of its kind, for

The

the half an olive

of outside its place

is not effective in place of an olive

of outside its time.

Rabbi Yannai said: If he thought that dogs would eat it tomorrow

and this is a thought of outside its time, except that he did not think that a person would eat it, but rather that dogs would eat it, it is

piggul,

as it is written [II Kings 9]: “

And the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel.”

And from here [it follows] that the eating of dogs is called eating, and it is found that he thought the thought of eating outside its time.

Rav Ami challenged him: But if that is so

according to your words, that you proved from the fact that the expression “eating” was written concerning dogs that their eating is considered eating with regard to the thought of piggul,

if he thought that fire would eat it

of an ordinary person

tomorrow, as it is written [A0070][Job 20], “

“Fire not blown shall consume him,”

Fire not blown shall eat him,”

and it implies that this is called eating,

so too, would

this be a thought of

piggul?

And if you would say: So too

that this would be piggul,

but we learned

in our Mishna: He thought

to eat as much as half an olive

outside its time

and to offer

for the sake of the Most High outside its time

half an olive

of something fit for offering, it is

valid, for eating and offering do not combine.

And if indeed the eating of fire, even of an ordinary person, is called eating, then offering, which is the fire of the Most High that eats what is fit for it, all the more so is it called eating. Why, then, do the thought of eating and the thought of offering not combine? Are they not both thoughts of eating? Rather, necessarily, the eating of fire is not called eating in the manner of human eating.

And we answer:

If he expressed it

as offering

in the expression of eating,

and he thought of “feeding” the fire with the meat of the offering tomorrow,

so too

that this would be piggul through its combining with the thought of human eating. But

here,

where it does not combine,

with what are we dealing—

with his expressing it in the language of offering,

that he thought of “offering” the meat outside its time,

for the language of eating is one thing and the language of offering is another thing,

and these two expressions do not combine.

Rav Ashi inquired: If he thought to eat an olive-sized portion

in a manner that

two people would eat it, what is the ruling—

is it piggul?

And the sides of the inquiry are: Shall we say

we follow the thought, for there is a measure?

For in his thought there was the eating of a complete olive-sized portion outside its time, and it is piggul.

Or

shall we say

we follow

the people who

eat, and there is no measure,

since they are two people and each one eats less than an olive-sized portion, and it follows that there is no thought of eating an olive-sized portion.

Abaye said: Come and hear

from what we learned in the Mishna: He thought

to eat as much as half an olive and to offer as much as half an olive, it is valid,

since

eating and offering do not combine

to complete [the measure of] piggul.