Zevachim — Daf 30b

אמר ליה אביי והא רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כי מגעת להו רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי בהדי הדדי לא פליגי

ולא פליגי והא מיפלג פליגי א"ל פליגי במאי דפליגי ולא פליגי במאי דלא פליגי

דאמר רבי יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן הכל מודים היכא דאמר תחול זו ואחר כך (אמר) תחול זו דברי הכל לא חיילא לא תחול זו אלא א"כ חלה זו דברי הכל חיילא

כי פליגי דאמר תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים רבי מאיר סבר מדהוה ליה למימר תמורת עולה ושלמים ואמר תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים שמע מינה מיהדר קא הדר ביה

ור' יוסי אי אמר תמורת עולה ושלמים הוה אמינא פלגא תמורת עולה ופלגא תמורת שלמים להכי אמר תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים למימרא דכולה עולה וכולה שלמים הויא

אמר ליה הוא אמר לא פליגי ואנא אמינא פליגי

אמר עולא ואיתימא רב אושעיא אפשר ידעין חברין בבלאה כזית כזית תנן או כזית וכזית תנן

כזית כזית תנן אבל כזית וכזית דברי הכל עירוב מחשבות הוי או דלמא כזית וכזית תנן דלרבי יהודה פרטא הוי וכל שכן כזית כזית

תא שמע דבעא מיניה לוי מרבי חישב לאכול כזית למחר בחוץ מהו א"ל זו שאילה עירוב מחשבות הוי

אמר לפניו רבי שמעון ברבי לא משנתינו היא לאכול כזית בחוץ כזית למחר כזית למחר כזית בחוץ כחצי זית בחוץ כחצי זית למחר כחצי זית למחר כחצי זית בחוץ פסול ואין בו כרת הא אידך עירוב מחשבות הוי

א"ל הוא שאל בי דבר חכמה ואת אמרת משנתינו לדידך דאתניתך תרתי לא קשיא לך

לדידיה דלא אתניתיה אלא חדא ושמעינהו לרבנן דקא גרסי תרתי וסבר דידי דווקא ודידהו עירוב מחשבות הוי או דלמא דידהו דווקא ולדידי שיורי שייר לי ומדשייר לי לדידי הא שייר להו לדידהו נמי בהך

והי אתנייה אילימא כזית וכזית אתנייה האי לאו שיורא הוא אלא כזית כזית אתנייה

ותיבעי ליה כזית וכזית

סבר איבעי מיניה חדא דשמענא תרתי דאי בעינא כזית וכזית הא ניחא אי אמר לי כללא כ"ש כזית למחר בחוץ אלא אי אמר לי פרטא אכתי כזית למחר בחוץ קא מיבעיא לי

אי הכי השתא נמי התינח אי אמר ליה כזית למחר בחוץ פרטא כ"ש כזית וכזית אלא אי א"ל כללא אכתי כזית וכזית מיבעי ליה

אם כן מרתח רתח

Said Abaye to him: Yet surely Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: When you bring R. Meir and R. Jose together, [you find that] they do not disagree.1 But do they not disagree? Surely they do disagree? — They disagree in what they disagree, he answered him, and they do not disagree in what they do not disagree.2 For R. Isaac b. Joseph said in R. Johanan's name: All agree that if he declared ‘Let this [sanctity] fall upon the animal and after that let that [sanctity] fall upon it,’ [the latter] does not fall upon it.3 ‘Let this [sanctity] not fall upon it unless the other falls upon it [too],’ all agree that [the latter] does not fall upon it.4 They disagree only where he declares, ‘[Let this animal be] a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering.’ R. Meir holds: Since he should have said, ‘A substitute for a burnt-offering and a peace-offering.’5 but said [instead], ‘A substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering,’ you may infer that he has indeed retracted.6 And R. Jose?7 — Had he declared, ‘A substitute for a burnt-offering and a peace-offering,’ I might have interpreted it, Half as a substitute for a burnt-offering and half as a substitute for a peace-offering;8 therefore he declared, ‘A substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offerings,’ to intimate that the whole should be a burnt-offering and the whole should be a peace-offerings!9 — Said he [R. Dimi] to him [Abaye]: He [Rabbah b. Bar Hanah] said that they do not disagree, but I maintain that they do disagree.10 ‘Ulla-others state, R. Oshaia — said: Perhaps our Babylonian colleagues know whether we learnt, ‘As much as an olive . . . as much as an olive’; or did we learn, ‘As much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive’?11 [The point of the question is this:] Did we learn, ‘As much as an olive . . . as much as an olive,’12 but [if he declared,] ‘. . . As much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive,’ all agree that it constitutes a mingling of intentions.13 Or perhaps we learnt’. . . as much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive,’ and this, in R. Judah's opinion, constitutes a detailed enumeration,14 and all the more [if he declared]’. . . as much as an olive . . . as much as an olive?’ — Come and hear, for Levi asked Rabbi: What if he intended eating as much as an olive on the morrow [after time] without bounds? Said he to him: That is indeed a question: it constitutes a mingling of intentions.15 Thereupon R. Simeon b. Rabbi observed, is this not [taught in] our Mishnah: [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT, AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; [OR] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW, AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT;’ [OR] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT, HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; [OR] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW. HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT: IT IS INVALID, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. Hence it follows that the other case16 constitutes a mingling of intentions.17 Nevertheless he asked me a profound question, he replied, though you say that it is [implied in] our Mishnah. Since I taught you both [cases], you find no difficulty.18 But him I taught only one,19 while he heard that the Rabbis read both versions [in the Mishnah]. Hence his doubt: was my teaching exact,20 whereas their [additional case] constitutes a mingling of intentions;21 or perhaps their [version] is exact,22 whilst I had simply omitted [one case when I taught him], and just as I had omitted this instance, so had they omitted the other instance.23 Now, which [case] did he teach him? If we say [that] he taught him: ‘. . . as much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive,’ [surely] that is not an omission!24 Hence he taught him, ‘As much as an olive . . . as much as an olive.’25 Then let him ask about ‘as much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive’?26 — He reasoned: I will ask him one case from which I may infer both. For if I ask about ‘as much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive,’ it is well if he answers me that it is a comprehensive statement,27 then all the more is it so [in the case of] ‘as much as an olive on the morrow without’; but if he answers me that it is a detailed enumeration, then I will still have the question about ‘as much as an olive on the morrow without’. If so,[the same objection can be urged] now too: it is well if he answered him that ‘as much as an olive on the morrow without’ constitutes a detailed enumeration, then all the more is it so in the case of ‘as much as an olive and as much as an olive’. But if he answered him that it is a comprehensive statement, he would still have the question: [what about] ‘as much as an olive and as much as an olive’ ? — If so, he [Rabbi] would have shewn asperity: substitution does not agree with R. Judah in our Mishnah. general question whether a man's first statement only is to be regarded, for they both hold that a man's complete intention must be taken into account, the point at issue being what is his intention. then let the sanctity of the other dedicated for a peace-offerings fall upon it’, it is not seized with the sanctity of the second, for sanctity cannot fall upon an animal which already possesses it. permitted, and therefore it retains the first sanctity only. when he actually came to sacrifice it). — Thus on the present interpretation R. Meir too does not disagree with R. Jose that you cannot regard only a man's first statement, which contradicts R. Dimi. olive after time’, or, . . . and as much as an olive after time’? ‘and’. as much’, etc., and the controversy of R. Judah and the Rabbis applies to both. Hence, since the Mishnah teaches these, and not a twofold declaration in respect of the same piece, you rightly deduce that there obviously even R. Judah admits that we have a mingling of intentions. piece certainly constitutes a mingling of intentions. detailed enumeration and no mingling of intentions even when the priest uses the copulative, how much more so when his statements are disjoined. Hence he would have understood that this too is included, but only this and no other, so that a twofold declaration in respect if the same piece would certainly be a mingling of intentions, and there would be no room for his question. an olive . . . as much’ etc.