Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 35

1) CAUSING "PIGUL" BY COMBINING THE "ACHILAH" AND "HAKTARAH" OF A KORBAN

QUESTION: The Mishnah records a Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Eliezer regarding whether a Korban becomes Pigul when it is sacrificed with a thought to *eat*, Chutz l'Zemano, a part of the animal that is normally burned on the Mizbe'ach (the Eimurim), or to burn on the Mizbe'ach a part that is normally eaten (the meat). The Mishnah continues and says that the thought that creates Pigul must involve an amount of meat or Eimurim that is more than a k'Zayis. The Mishnah adds that if the person offering the Korban has in mind to eat a half of a k'Zayis of meat Chutz l'Zemano, and to burn half of a k'Zayis of Eimurim Chutz l'Zemano, the Korban remains Kosher because a thought of eating (Achilah) and a thought of burning on the Mizbe'ach (Haktarah) do not combine.

Why does the Mishnah need to teach that Achilah and Haktarah do not combine? The Mishnah earlier (29b) already teaches that! What is it teaching by repeating this law here? (TOSFOS YOM TOV)

ANSWERS:

(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV suggests that the Mishnah is teaching that a thought to eat a k'Zayis of meat Chutz l'Zemano in an amount of time that is more than "Kedei Achilas Peras" is able to create Pigul. The Gemara earlier (31b) attempts to prove this Halachah from the Mishnah there (29b), which says that a thought of eating a half of a k'Zayis and burning a half of a k'Zayis do not combine to make the Korban become Pigul. This implies that a thought of eating an entire k'Zayis in the same amount of time that it takes to eat a half of a k'Zayis and to burn a half of a k'Zayis (i.e. more than a "Kedei Achilas Peras," since it takes much more time than "Kedei Achilas Peras" to burn a k'Zayis of Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach) *does* cause the Korban to become Pigul. The Gemara refutes the proof by saying that when the Mishnah mentions a thought of burning half of a k'Zayis, it might be referring only to burning it in a very large fire, where the burning of a k'Zayis would take less time that "Kedei Achilas Peras."

The Tosfos Yom Tov suggests that the Mishnah here repeats the Halachah of having a thought to eat half of a k'Zayis and to burn half of a k'Zayis in order to show that it is *not* referring only to a thought to burn it in a large fire on the Mizbe'ach. Therefore, we *can* infer from the Mishnah that a thought to eat a k'Zayis in more time than "Kedei Achilas Peras" creates Pigul.

The Tosfos Yom Tov adds that this might explain why the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 14:10) rules that a thought of eating the meat in more time than "Kedei Achilas Peras" *does* create Pigul, even though the Gemara (31b) does not reach a Halachic conclusion regarding the matter. The Rambam reached his conclusion based on an inference from our Mishnah, which repeats the Halachah of a thought to eat half of a k'Zayis and to burn half of a k'Zayis in order to allude to this Halachah.

However, this approach is forced. If this is the intent of our Mishnah, then why does the Gemara itself (on 31b) not prove the Halachah of having a thought to eat a k'Zayis in more time than "Kedei Achilas Peras" from our Mishnah?

(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#6), RASHASH, and others point out that RASHI in Menachos (17a) asks this question. The Mishnayos there (12b and 17a) are identical to the Mishnayos here (Zevachim 29b and 35a), except that those Mishnayos discuss Menachos (flour offerings), while the Mishnayos here discuss Korbanos (animal offering). Rashi there (17a, DH ha'Kometz) asks why the Mishnah repeats the Halachah of a thought of eating half a k'Zayis (of a Minchah) and burning half of a k'Zayis. Rashi answers that the Mishnah there, and our Mishnah, cite the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer who rules that a thought to eat something that is normally offered on the Mizbe'ach, and vice versa, can create Pigul. The Mishnah therefore needs to teach that even according to Rebbi Eliezer, a thought to eat a half of a k'Zayis and a thought to burn half of a k'Zayis do not combine.

In what way, though, is the Halachah of having a thought to eat a half of a k'Zayis and to burn half of a k'Zayis related to the ruling of Rebbi Eliezer, who says that a thought to eat the Eimurim makes the Korban become Pigul? Why would we have thought that Rebbi Eliezer does not agree that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine with each other?

1. Rashi there explains that Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies the Korban as Pigul through a thought to eat the Eimurim only mid'Rabanan, but not mid'Oraisa. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the Rabanan enacted a Gezeirah that invalidates the Korban as Pigul when one has a thought to eat part of the Korban that is normally burned on the Mizbe'ach, lest a person has a thought to eat, Chutz l'Zemano, part of the Korban that is normally eaten. We might have thought that Rebbi Eliezer maintains that there is an additional Gezeirah that the Korban becomes Pigul when a person has a thought to eat only half of a k'Zayis Chutz l'Zemano, lest a person have a thought to eat a full k'Zayis Chutz l'Zemano. The Mishnah teaches, therefore, that even according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Korban is valid if the person thought only about half of a k'Zayis. Even if he thought to burn, Chutz l'Zemano, another half of a k'Zayis, the Korban remains valid, since thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine.

2. The SHITAH MEKUBETZES there (#10) points out that the Gemara in Menachos seems to derive a source for Rebbi Eliezer's ruling from the words of the verse. Therefore, it is difficult to assert that Rebbi Eliezer's ruling is only a Gezeirah d'Rabanan. The Shitah Mekubetzes instead suggests that since Rebbi Eliezer maintains that a thought to eat a k'Zayis of Eimurim makes a Korban become Pasul, we might have thought that Rebbi Eliezer maintains that there is a Gezeirah d'Rabanan that disqualifies a Korban which a person offers with a thought to eat, Chutz l'Zemano, half of a k'Zayis of meat and to burn half of a k'Zayis of Eimurim, lest he offer it with a thought to eat a half of a k'Zayis of meat and to *eat* half of a k'Zayis of Eimurim. Therefore, the Mishnah teaches that even Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the Korban is valid, and that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine.

(c) However, the preceding answer is limited to only one opinion in the Gemara earlier (33b). The Amora'im argue whether the Mishnah (29b) which teaches that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine is following the opinion of the Rabanan or Rebbi Eliezer. According to Abaye, who maintains that the Mishnah there is following the opinion of the Rabanan, we can accept Rashi's answer that the Mishnah *here* teaches that even Rebbi Eliezer agrees with this Halachah. However, according to Rebbi Yirmeyah, even the Mishnah there (29b) is following the view of Rebbi Eliezer! Why, then, must the Mishnah here repeat that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with this view?

The Shitah Mekubetzes in Menachos answers as follows. According to Rebbi Yirmeyah -- who maintains that when the Mishnah says that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine, it must be following the view of Rebbi Eliezer -- the Mishnah here repeats the Halachah for a different reason. Had the Tana taught this Halachah only in the earlier Mishnah, and then told us, in the following Mishnah, that Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan argue whether or not a thought to eat Eimurim creates Pigul, we would have ruled *against* Rebbi Eliezer, because it would have been a situation of "Stam v'Achar Kach Machlokes" -- the "Stam Mishnah" (on 29b) would be following the view of Rebbi Eliezer, and it would be followed by Machlokes in the Mishnah (35a), citing both opinions. In such a case, we rule against the opinion expressed in the "Stam Mishnah." (Yevamos 42b, Avodah Zarah 7a; see Background there). The Mishnah, therefore, repeats that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine -- a statement which, according to Rebbi Yirmeyah, is necessary only according to Rebbi Eliezer, so that the Mishnayos will be in the order of "Machlokes v'Achar Kach Stam" in order to teach us that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Eliezer.

According to the Shitah Mekubetzes, we may ask why does the *first* Mishnah need to mention this Halachah, that Achilah and Haktarah do not combine? It should be recorded only in the Mishnah here, where it will be a "Machlokes v'Achar Kach Stam," and it is unnecessary to mention it in the earlier Mishnah. Apparently, it is mentioned in the earlier Mishnah only as an aside, "Derech Agav," since the Mishnah there discussed a case of a thought of half of a k'Zayis.

(d) TOSFOS cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes in Menachos writes the opposite of the explanation given above in the previous answer. The Mishnah earlier (29b) is where the Halachah actually belongs. In our Mishnah, the Halachah that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine was mentioned only as an aside, "Derech Agav," since the Mishnah mentions the Halachah of having a thought to eat part of the Korban which is normally offered on the Mizbe'ach. (Apparently, Tosfos means that after first mentioning that even having a thought to burn, Chutz l'Zemano, something that is normally burned on the Mizbe'ach does not cause Pigul if it involves less than a k'Zayis, the Mishnah then mentions that a half of a k'Zayis of a thought of Achilah cannot combine with a thought of Haktarah.)

35b

QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that a thought of Pigul affects the Korban only when the thought involves eating something that is completely edible. A thought to eat, Chutz l'Zemano, something that is barely edible does not make the Korban become Pigul. Therefore, a thought to eat the Shelil (fetus) or Shilya (placenta) Chutz l'Zemano will not make the Korban become Pigul. The Gemara questions whether the Shelil can become Pigul if the person offering the Korban had a thought to eat the edible meat of the animal Chutz l'Zemano. Perhaps just as a thought to eat the Shelil Chutz l'Zemano does not create Pigul, so, too, even when the Korban becomes Pigul because of a thought to eat the meat Chutz l'Zemano, the Shelil will not be considered Pigul. On the other hand, perhaps once the Korban becomes Pigul through a thought to eat the meat Chutz l'Zemano, the Shelil becomes Pigul as well.

The Gemara attempts to answer this question from a Beraisa which says that if the Kohen thought to eat the meat of the Parim ha'Nisrafim, the Parim do not become Pigul (because his thought involved something that is supposed to be burned and not eaten; this follows the opinion of the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah). The Gemara infers from this statement that if the Kohen had in mind to offer the Eimurim of the Parim Chutz l'Zemano, then the meat of the Parim *does* become Pigul. This implies that even something that cannot *make* Pigul if one thinks to eat it Chutz l'Zemano can, nevertheless, *become* Pigul.

How can the Gemara prove this point from the fact that the meat of Parim can become Pigul? Rashi (DH v'Shavin) points out that if a Kohen has in mind to burn the meat of the Parim Chutz l'Zemano, and he expressed the thought by saying, "I want the fire to *eat* these Parim tomorrow," it will become Pigul, because there is no difference between his own eating and the Mizbe'ach's "eating." Accordingly, it certainly is possible for a thought about the meat of the Parim ha'Nisrafim to make the animal Pigul. Since it can create Pigul, it can become Pigul! It is not comparable to a thought about the Shelil which cannot make Pigul at all! (TAHARAS HA'KODESH, and the BRISKER RAV cited by the MINCHAS AVRAHAM)

ANSWER: A similar question may be asked about the Shelil and Shilya themselves. The Gemara (31a) teaches that if a Kohen has a thought to feed to dogs the meat of a Korban Chutz l'Zemano, the Korban will become Pigul. This is because the dogs' eating is also considered Achilah. It certainly is normal for a dog to eat a Shelil and Shilya. Therefore, it should be possible to make the Korban become Pigul by having a thought to feed the Shelil or Shilya to a dog! Just as they can make the Korban become Pigul, they should become Pigul when one thinks about eating the meat of the Korban Chutz l'Zemano. Furthermore, if the Kohen has a thought to "feed" the Shelil or Shilya to a fire, that will also make the Korban become Pigul! Why, then, should there be any question regarding the status of the Shelil and Shilya when the meat becomes Pigul?

The verse states with regard to the Isur of eating Pigul, "v'ha'Nefesh *ha'Ocheles* Mimenu" (Vayikra 7:18). This implies that the Chiyuv Kares applies only to eating something in the normal manner, which the verse calls "Achilah" ("ha'Ocheles") When our Gemara suggests that the Shelil should not have an Isur of Kares if the Korban becomes Pigul because a thought for a person to eat the Shelil Chutz l'Zemano does not create Pigul, it means to prove that when a person eats a Shelil, it is not classified as a normal manner of Achilah. Therefore, such an Achilah cannot carry the Isur of Kares of Pigul, since it will not satisfy the verse of "v'ha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles." It makes no difference if a thought to feed the Shelil to the dogs or to a fire Chutz l'Zemano will make the Korban become Pigul, because that does not prove that when a *man* eats a Shelil, it is classified as an Achilah. (M. Kornfeld)