Parallel
זבחים 29:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
other intentions must not be mingled therein. ‘An abhorred thing [piggul]’: this refers to [the intention of eating it] without bounds. ‘It shall be’: this teaches that they combine with each other. ‘And the soul that eateth of it’: one, but not two; and which is it? [the intention of eating it] after time, for the meaning of ‘iniquity’ is learnt from nothar, since it is similar to it in Zab. R. Papa said to Raba: According to you. how do you interpret ‘third’ in the pericope. ‘Ye shall be holy’? — That is needed to teach [that the illegitimate intention must concern] a place which has a threefold function, viz., in respect of the blood, the flesh, and the emurim. But I may deduce that from the earlier text, viz., ‘And if [it] be at all eaten’, since the Divine Law expresses it by the word ‘third’? — Said R. Ashi: I reported this discussion before R. Mattenah, whereupon he answered me: If [I deduced it] from there, I would say: ‘Third’ is a particularization, and ‘piggul’ is a generalisation, and so the generalisation becomes an addition to the particularization, and therefore other places are included too. Hence [the text in ‘Ye shall be holy’] informs us [that it is not so]. Our Rabbis taught: ‘And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten [on the third day]’: R. Eliezer said: Incline your ear to hear: Scripture speaks of one who intends eating of his sacrifice on the third day. Yet perhaps that is not so, but rather [Scripture speaks] of one who eats of his sacrifice on the third day? You can answer: After it has become fit, shall it then become unfit? Said R. Akiba to him: Behold, we find that a zab and a zabah and a woman ‘who watches from day to day’ are presumed to be clean, yet since they have a discharge they undo [their cleanness]; hence you too need not wonder at this, that after [the sacrifice] has become fit it then becomes unfit. Said he to him: Lo, it says, ‘[unto him] that offereth’, [intimating that] it becomes unfit at the offering, but it does not become unfit on the third [day]. Yet perhaps that is not so, but it says, ‘him that offereth’, meaning the priest who offers it? When it says ‘it’, [Scripture] speaks of the sacrifice, and does not speak of the priest. Ben ‘Azzai said: Why is ‘it’ stated? Because it is said, [When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God,] thou shalt not delay to pay it: You might think that also he who delays [the fulfilment of] his vow incurs [the sentence] ‘it shall not be accepted’: therefore it says, ‘it’: ‘it’ [piggul] is subject to ‘it shall not be accepted’, but he who delays his vow is not subject to ‘it shall not be accepted’. Others say: ‘it shall not be imputed’ [teaches that] it becomes unfit through imputation [illegal intention], but does not become unfit through [being eaten on] the third [day]. Now, how does Ben ‘Azzai know that Scripture speaks of the sacrifice and not of the priest? — I can say that he deduces it from [the exegesis of] the ‘Others’. Alternatively, I can say [that he knows this] because it is written, [it] shall not be accepted, and ‘[it] shall not be accepted’ can only apply to the sacrifice. Now Ben ‘Azzai [deduces]: ‘it’ is subject to ‘it shall not be accepted’. but he who delays [the payment of] his vow is not subject to ‘it shall not be accepted’: [but] is this deduced from the present text? Surely it is deduced from [the text cited by] ‘Others’? For it was taught: Others say: You might think that a firstling which passed its [first] year is
—