Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT MAKES "PIGUL"?

(a) (Gemara): (We are thinking that the skin of the tail has the same law as the tail, i.e. it is part of the Eimurim).
(b) Inference: Intent for a person to eat something which should go on the Mizbe'ach is intention (to make Pigul).
(c) (Shmuel): Yes - the Mishnah is R. Eliezer, who says that intent for a person (or the Mizbe'ach) to 'eat' something fit for the Mizbe'ach (or people) is intention.

1. (Mishnah): If one slaughtered a Korban with intent to eat (or burn) (Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo) something which is normally eaten (or burned), it is Kosher;
2. R. Eliezer says, it is Pasul.

(d) Question: Our Mishnah cannot be R. Eliezer, the end of the Mishnah is not like him!

1. The general rule is - If one slaughtered, did Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah with intent to eat (or burn) (Chutz li'Mkomo or Chutz li'Zmano) something which is normally eaten (or burned), (it is Pasul or Pigul).
2. Inference: If it is not normally eaten, it is Kosher.
3. This is like Chachamim!

(e) Answer (Shmuel): Indeed, the beginning of the Mishnah is R. Eliezer, the end is Chachamim.
(f) (Rav Huna): The skin of the tail does not have the law of the tail.

1. (Rava): He learns from "Chelbo ha'Alyah" - not the skin of the tail.

(g) (Rav Chisda): Really, the skin of the tail has the same law as the tail;

1. The Mishnah discusses a goat (its tail is not part of the Eimurim).

(h) Rav Huna and Rav Chisda did not explain like Shmuel, they did not want to establish the beginning and end of the Mishnah according to different Tana'im;
(i) Shmuel and Rav Chisda did not explain like Rav Huna, they hold that the skin of the tail has the same law as the tail;
(j) Question: Why didn't Shmuel and Rav Huna explain like Rav Chisda?
(k) Answer: If so, the Mishnah teaches that the skin of the tail has the same law as the tail - we already learn this from another Mishnah!

1. (Mishnah): The skins of the following are like the flesh - the skin under the tail...

(l) Rav Chisda says, one might have thought that that only applies to Tum'ah - since it is soft, it joins with flesh for the required quantity for Tum'ah;

1. Kodshim are to be eaten "L'Mashchah" (in grandeur), as kings eat, they normally do not eat skin of the tail;
2. Therefore, the Mishnah must teach this.

(m) Question (Beraisa): If one slaughtered an Olah with intent to burn the skin under the tail Chutz li'Mkomo, it is Pasul, there is no Kares; Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul, one who eats the meat is Chayav Kares.

1. Eliezer ben Yehudah says, the same applies to the skin of the feet (below the knees) of small animals, the skin of the head of a yearling calf, and the skin under the tail, and the skins which Chachamim said have the same Tum'ah as the flesh;
2. This comes to include the skin of the Ervah of a female.
3. Inference: The Beraisa specifies an Olah (for all the meat is burned) - but the skin under the tail could not make Pigul in other Zevachim (because it is not included in the Eimurim)!
4. This is like Rav Huna, it is difficult for Rav Chisda!

(n) Answer #1: The Beraisa refers to a goat (the tail itself is not part of the Eimurim).
(o) Answer #2: Indeed, the Beraisa should say 'If one slaughtered a Zevach...'

(a) (Mishnah): It is Pasul, there is no Kares.
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Shmuel): Two verses teach about Pasul and Pigul.
(d) Question: What are these verses?
(e) Answer (Rabah): "Shelishi" - this refers to (intention of) Chutz li'Zmano;

1. "Pigul" refers to Chutz li'Mkomo;
2. "Veha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu (Avonah Tisa)" - only one of them has Kares - Chutz li'Zmano, not Chutz li'Mkomo.

(f) Question: Perhaps 'Mimenu' teaches Kares for Chutz li'Mkomo, and Chutz li'Zmano does not have Kares!
(g) Answer #1: Presumably, Chutz li'Zmano is Chayav Kares, for this was expounded earlier in the verse.
(h) Rejection: Just the contrary! Chutz li'Mkomo should be Chayav Kares, for this was expounded closer to "Mimenu"!
(i) Answer #2 (Abaye - Beraisa): In Parshas Kedoshim, it says "(V'Im He'achel Ye'achel ba'Yom) ha'Shelishi (Lo Yeratzeh)" (eating Nosar cannot retroactively invalidate the Korban, surely the verse discusses improper intention);

1. Question: We already know Chutz li'Zmano from the longer verse (above, in Tzav) "V'Im He'achel...".

2. Answer: The shorter verse (in Kedoshim) is used to teach about Chutz li'Mkomo.

i. Regarding Nosar, it says "V'Ochlav Avono Yisa (...v'Nichresah)" - one who eat Nosar gets Kares, not one who eats (a Korban slaughtered) Chutz li'Mkomo.

3. Question: Why not say oppositely, this is Mechayev Kares for Chutz li'Zmano, and exempts Nosar from Kares!
4. Version #1 - Rashi - Answer #1: (Background - no verse about Chutz li'Zmano mentions Kares; we have a Gezerah Shavah "Avon-Avon" to learn Chutz li'Zmano either from the short verse (which is Mechayev Kares), or from eating Tamei Kodshim (which is only a Lav) - it is preferable to learn the former.)

i. It is preferable to explain that the short verse is Mechayev Kares for Nosar, for then we can learn the Gezerah Shavah from Nosar, for they are similar regarding ZaV (an acronym - *Z*eman (both depend on time, and both apply to a) *B*amah), these do not apply to eating Tamei Kodshim. (Nor do they apply to Chutz li'Mkomo - if our verse teaches about Chutz li'Mkomo, we would learn the Gezerah Shavah from eating Tamei Kodshim!)

5. Rejection: Just the contrary, it is preferable to expound it to teach about Chutz li'Mkomo, then we can learn "Avon-Avon" to Chutz li'Zmano, for they are similar regarding MiKDaSH (both depend on *M*achshavah (intention), intention for *K*etzas (part of the Korban) is Posel the whole Korban, both apply to the Avodos with the *D*am, it says *SH*elishi by both of them). (These do not apply to eating Tamei Kodshim, nor to Nosar.)
6. Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer #1: (Background - the tradition from Sinai for the Gezerah Shavah specified to equate the short and long verses (regarding Kares));

i. It is preferable to explain that the Gezerah Shavah equates similar things, i.e. the short verse refers to Nosar, this resembles Chutz li'Zmano regarding ZaV.

7. Rejection: Just the contrary, it is better if it refers to Chutz li'Mkomo, this resembles Chutz li'Zmano regarding MiKDaSH! (End of Version #2)
8. Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Kodesh-Kodesh" (that eating Nosar is Chayav Kares) - it says here "Es Kodesh Hash-m Chilel v'Nichrasah", and it says "Ve'Sarafta Es ha'Nosar (...Ki Kodesh Hu)";

i. Therefore, "V'Ochlav Avono Yisa (...v'Nichrasa)" surely refers to Nosar, and excludes Chutz li'Mkomo.

(j) Objection: How do we know that the long verse (which is Mechayev Kares) refers to Chutz li'Zmano, and the short verse excludes Chutz li'Mkomo from Kares - perhaps it is just the contrary!
(k) Answer #1: Presumably, the long verse refers to Chutz li'Zmano, for this resembles Nosar regarding ZaV (Rashi - and therefore, we can learn a Gezerah Shavah to it from Nosar to Mechayev Kares; Tosfos - presumably, the Gezerah Shavah equates similar things).
(l) Rejection: Just the contrary, we should say that it refers to Chutz li'Mkomo, and the short verse refers to Chutz li'Zmano;

1. Since Chutz li'Zmano resembles Nosar, one might have thought to say that Kares also applies to it, therefore the Torah had to exclude it ("V'Ochlav" - Nosar, not Chutz li'Zmano)!

(m) Answer #2 (Rava): The long verse is Mechayev Kares for Chutz li'Zmano, and exempts Chutz li'Mkomo (as Rabah taught above):

1. "He'achel Ye'achel" - the verse refers to two eatings, of people and the Mizbe'ach (Pigul applies to both);
2. "Mi'Bsar Zevach Shelamav" - Pigul only applies to things like Shelamim, part of which is Mefagel (improper intention during Avodah of the blood is Posel the Korban) and part is Misfagel (if it becomes Pigul, the meat and Eimurim are forbidden). (This excludes Menachos from which a Kometz is not taken, for one part does not permit the other.)
3. "Ha'Shelishi" - this refers to Chutz li'Zmano;
4. "Lo Yeratzeh" - becoming Pigul is like becoming acceptable;

i. A Korban does not become Pigul until finishing all the Avodos needed for a Kosher Korban to bring atonement.

5. "Ha'Makriv" - it becomes Pigul while it is being offered (with improper intention), not (like the simple understanding of the verse,) by eating it on the third day.
6. "Oso" - the Korban becomes Pasul, not the Kohen who offered it.
7. "Lo Yechashev" - it becomes Pigul only if all the Pasul intentions were Chutz li'Zmano.
8. "Pigul" - this refers to Chutz li'Mkomo;
9. "Yihyeh" - Improper intentions join together (if he intended to eat half a k'Zayis of meat Chutz li'Zmano and half a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo, this is like intention for a k'Zayis, it is Posel);
10. "Veha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles *Mimenu*" - only one of these intentions has Kares;
11. Question: Which has Kares?
12. Answer: Chutz li'Zmano, we learn "Avon-Avon" from Nosar, which resembles it regarding ZaV.