1 seeing that ‘as much as an olive and as much as an olive’ is a comprehensive statement, is there a question about ‘as much as an olive on the morrow without’! It was stated: [If one declares, ‘I will eat] half [as much as] in olive after time, half an olive without bounds and half as much as an olive after time,’ — Said Raba: ‘Then the piggul awaked as one asleep’. But R. Hamnuna maintained: This constitutes a mingling of intentions. Raba said: Whence do I say it? Because we learnt: if one combines as much as an egg of an edible of first degree with as much as an egg of an edible of second degree, [the combination] ranks as first degree. If one separates them, each ranks as second degree. But if one re-combined them, [the mixture] ranks as first degree. Whence [does this follow]? — Because the second clause teaches: If each falls separately on a loaf of terumah, they render it unfit; if they both fall [on it] simultaneously, they render it second degree. But R. Hamnuna argues: There you had the requisite standard; but here the standard is absent. R. Hamnuna said: Whence do I say it? — Because we learnt: An edible which was defiled by a principal degree of uncleanness, and [one] which was defiled by a derivative of uncleanness combine with each other to defile according to the lesser of the two. Surely that means even if [the standard quantity] is subsequently made up? — [No:] perhaps [this holds good only] when one does not make up [the standard]. When R. Dimi came, he said: [When one declares his intention of eating] half an olive without bounds and half an olive after time and [another] half an olive after time, — Bar Kappara taught: It is piggul, [because the declaration in respect of] half an olive is of no effect as against [that in respect of] an olive. When Rabin came, he said: [If one declares his intention of eating] half as much as an olive after time and [another] half an olive after time and half an olive without bounds, — Bar Kappara taught: It is piggul, [because the declaration in respect of] half an olive is of no effect as against [that of] an olive. R. Ashi recited it thus: [If one declares his intention to eat] half an olive after time, and an olive, half without bounds and half after time, — Bar Kappara taught: It is piggul, [because the declaration in respect of] half an olive is of no effect as against [that of] an olive. R. Jannai said: If one intended dogs to eat it on the morrow, it is piggul, because it is written, And the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel. To this R. Ammi demurred: If so, if he intended fire to eat it on the morrow, is that too piggul, since it is written, A fire not blown by man shall eat [consume] him? And should you say, That indeed is so, — surely we learnt, [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [ILLEGITIMATELY] AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [ILLEGITIMATELY], IT IS FIT, BECAUSE EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE? — If he expressed [his intention] in terms of eating, that indeed would be so; here [in the Mishnah] however he expressed it in terms of burning: [hence they do not combine,] because the term eating is one thing and the term burning is another. R. Assi asked: What if he intended as much as an olive to be eaten [illegitimately] by two men? Do we go by his intention, and there is the standard [of disqualification]; or do we go by the eaters, and there is not the standard? — Said Abaye, Come and hear: [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [ILLEGITIMATELY]. IT IS FIT, BECAUSE EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE.ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳ
2 Hence if he intended to eat [half as much as an olive] and to eat [half as much as an olive] in a way similar to [the intention of] eating and burning, — and how is that possible? [that the two half olives] should be eaten by two men, — they would combine. This proves it. Raba asked: What if he intended to eat as much as an olive within more than the time required for eating half [a loaf]? Do we compare this to the eating of the All-High, or do we liken it to human eating? — Said Abaye, Come and hear: [IF HE INTENDED] EATING HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE AND BURNING HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE, IT IS FIT, BECAUSE EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE. Thus only eating and burning; but eating and eating in a way similar to eating and burning combine, though burning requires more than the time for eating half [a loaf]! — [No:] perhaps it means in a big fire. [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE IT IS FIT. Thus only to eat and to burn; but [if he intended] to eat [what is fit for eating] and to eat what is not fit for eating they combine. Yet surely the first clause teaches: [IF HE INTENDS] TO EAT WHAT IS NORMALLY EATEN [IT IS UNFIT]. Hence, only what is normally eaten, but not what is not normally eaten? — Said R. Jeremiah. This is in accordance with R. Eliezer, who maintained [that] you can intend [with effect] for the altar's consumption what is meant for human consumption and for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption. For we learnt: If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burnt, it is fit; but R. Eliezer invalidates [it]. Abaye said: You may even say that it is according to the Rabbis; but do not deduce: But [if he intends] to eat [what is fit for eating] and to eat what is not normally eaten [it is fit]; deduce rather: But [if he intends] to eat [what is normally eaten] and to eat what is normally eaten [it is invalid]. [Then] what does [the Tanna] inform us? if he informs us [the law concerning] what is normally eaten, you can infer this from the first clause: [IF HE INTENDS TO EAT] HALF AS MUlch AS AN Olive WITHOUT, HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW, [HIS INTENTIONS] COMBINE. If [he informs us about intending] to eat and to burn, you can infer this by deduction from the first clause, [viz.,] only [if he intends] to eat what is normally eaten, but not [if he intends to eat] what is not normally eaten. Then seeing that [intentions] to eat [what is normally eaten] and to eat what is not normally eaten do not combine, is it necessary [to teach about intentions] to eat and to burn [that they do not combine]? — He needs [to teach about intending] to eat and to burn. For you might argue, Only there [do they not combine], because his intention is not normal; but here, where [his intentions in respect of] each are normal, I would say that they combine. Hence he informs us [otherwise]. MISHNAH. ALL UNFIT PERSONS WHO SLAUGHTERED, THEIR SLAUGHTERING IS VALID, FOR SLAUGHTERING IS VALID [EVEN WHEN PERFORMED] BY LAY-ISRAELITES [ZARIM], AND BY WOMEN, AND BY SLAVES, AND BY UNCLEAN, EVEN IN THE CASE OF SACRIFICES OF HIGHER SANCTITY, PROVIDED THAT UNCLEAN [PERSONS] DO NOT TOUCH THE FLESH; THEREFORE THEY INVALIDATE [THE SACRIFICE] BY AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION.ˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍ