Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT MAKES "PIGUL"?

(a) Question (Rav Papa against Rava): What do you learn from 'Shelishi' in the short verse?
(b) Answer (Rava): This teaches that improper intention takes effect only if it is in a place Meshulash with blood, meat and Eimurim (Rashi - all are offered or consumed there; R. Yom Tov - a place is Meshulash if all of these become Pasul there).
(c) Question: We already know this from Shelishi in the long verse (which comes first)!
(d) Answer (Rav Masnah): From there, one might have thought that "Shelishi" is a specific, "Pigul" is a generality - from the specific and generality we include all places;

1. Therefore, it must say Shelishi in the short verse to teach that the place must be Meshulash.

(e) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): "V'Im He'achel Ye'achel mi'Bsar Zevach Shelamav" - the verse discusses one who plans to eat on the third day.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps it discusses one who eats on the third day!
2. Rejection: If it was already Kosher (at the time of Zerikah), it cannot become Pasul later!
3. R. Akiva: But we find regarding a Zav (or Zavah or Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom) that is Muchzak to be Tahor, if he (she) sees an emission (blood), he retroactively becomes Tamei;

i. Similarly, a Korban that was Kosher can become Pasul later!

4. R. Eliezer: "Ha'Makriv" - it becomes Pasul at the time it is offered, not on the third day.

i. Suggestion: Perhaps "Ha'Makriv" comes to Posel the Kohen who offered it!
ii. Rejection: "Oso"`- only the Zevach becomes Pasul.

(a) (Beraisa - Ben Azai): Since it says "Lo Se'acher Leshalmo", one might have thought that if one delayed bringing the Korban he vowed (transgressing Lo Se'acher), it is Pasul - "Oso" teaches, Pigul is not Meratzeh, but a late Korban is accepted.
(b) Others say, "Lo Yechashev" - it becomes Pasul through intent, not (by being eaten) on the third day.
(c) Question: What is Ben Azai's source that the Korban becomes Pasul, not the Kohen?
(d) Answer #1: He agrees with 'Others' (the Torah had to teach that eating on the third day is not Posel - one would never think that this could Pasul the Kohen who offered it)!
(e) Answer #2: It says, "Lo Yeratzeh" - this refers to the Korban.
(f) Question: Ben Azai should learn that a late Korban is acceptable like 'Others' (why does he need "Oso"?)!

1. (Beraisa - Others) Suggestion: A Bechor (firstborn male animal, it is automatically a Korban) that was not offered in its first year should be Pasul like a blemished Korban.

2. Rejection: "V'Achalta...Ma'aser Degancha...u'Vchoros Bekarcha" - the Torah equates Bechor and Ma'aser (of produce) - just as Ma'aser is not Nifsal if it is not eaten within the year, also Bechor.

(g) Answer: One might have thought, Bechor is not Nifsal because it does not atone for anything, but one who must bring a Korban does not fulfill his obligation if he brought it late;

1. "Oso" teaches that this is not so.

(h) Question: He should learn from the following verse!

1. "V'Hayah *Becha* Chet" (if you delay fulfilling your vow) - there is no sin in your Korban (it is Kosher).

(i) Answer: Ben Azai expounds, "V'Hayah *Becha* Chet" - there is no sin in your wife (she will not die for this).

1. (R. Elazar): A woman dies if her husband does not pay the theft (Rashi; Tosfos - *never* brings the vows) that he owes - "Im Ein Lecha Leshalem Lamah Yikach Mishkavcha mi'Tachtecha";
2. One might have thought, she also dies for delaying bringing vows - Ben Azai teaches, this is not so.

(j) (Beraisa - Others): "Lo Yechashev" - it becomes Pasul through intent, not on the third day.
(k) Question: How does R. Eliezer expound "Lo Yechashev"?
(l) Answer: He expounds like R. Yanai.

1. Version #1 (R. Yanai): An intention (of Chutz li'Mkomo) that accompanies an intention (of Chutz li'Zmano) prevents Kares - "Lo Yechashev", different intentions will not be mixed.
2. Version #2 - Rav Mari - (R. Yanai): One who offers Kodshim with improper intention is lashed - "Lo Yechashev".
3. Question (Rav Ashi): One is not lashed for a Lav that does not entail an action!
4. Answer (Rav Mari): He holds like R. Yehudah, who says that one is lashed for such a Lav.

(a) (Mishnah): The general rule regarding Shechitah, Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah done with (improper) intent to eat something that is normally eaten, or Lehaktir (to burn on the Mizbe'ach) something that is normally burned there:

1. If he intended for a k'Zayis (e.g. of meat) Chutz li'Mkomo, the Korban is Pasul, there is no Kares;
2. If he intended for a k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, the Korban is Pigul, one who eats it is Chayav Kares, if the Matir (the blood, which permits the meat and Eimurim) was offered properly (except for intention of Chutz li'Zmano).

(b) Question: When do we say that the Matir was offered properly?
(c) Answer: If he slaughtered property, and did Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah (with intent) Chutz li'Zmano;

1. Or, he slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano, and did the other three Avodos properly;
2. Or, he did all four Avodos Chutz li'Zmano.

(d) Question: When do we say that the Matir was not offered properly?
(e) Answer: If he slaughtered Chutz li'Mkomo, and did Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano;

1. Or, he slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano, and did one of the other three Avodos Chutz li'Mkomo;
2. Or, he did all four Avodos Chutz li'Mkomo;
3. Or, regarding a Chatas or Pesach - he slaughtered Lo Lishmah (this is Posel these Korbanos), and did Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah Chutz li'Zmano;

i. Or, he slaughtered Chutz li'Zmano, and did one of the other three Avodos Lo Lishmah.
ii. Or, he did all four Avodos Lo Lishmah.

(f) If he intended to eat a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo, and (later intended to eat) a k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, or vice-versa, or half a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo, and half a k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, or vice-versa, it is Pasul, there is no Kares;
(g) R. Yehudah says, the general rule is - if intent Chutz li'Zmano came first, it is Pigul, there is Kares; if intent Chutz li'Mkomo came first, it is Pasul, there is no Kares.
(h) Chachamim say, whichever came first it is Pasul, there is no Kares;

1. If he intended to eat half a k'Zayis (Chutz li'Mkomo or Chutz li'Zmano) and Lehaktir half a k'Zayis, it is Kosher, because eating and burning do not join.

(i) (Gemara - Ilfa):Chachamim and R. Yehudah argue about intentions in two different Avodos, but if he had both intents in one Avodah, all agree that it is Pasul, there is no Kares;
(j) (R. Yochanan): They argue even when the intentions were in one Avodah.
(k) Question: According to Ilfa, the entire Mishnah discusses (intentions in) different Avodos - but according to R. Yochanan, the beginning discusses two Avodos, the end discusses one Avodah!
(l) Answer: Indeed, that is how R. Yochanan explains the Mishnah.