other intentions must not be mingled therein. (1) ‘An abhorred thing [Piggul]’: this refers to [the intention of eating it] without bounds. (2) ‘It shall be’: this teaches that they combine with each other. (3) ‘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. (4) R. Papa said to Raba: According to you. how do you interpret ‘third’ in the pericope. ‘Ye shall be holy’? (5) — 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. (6) 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’? (7) — 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, (8) and so the generalization 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? (9) 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]; (10) 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? (11) 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: (12) You might think that also he who delays [the fulfillment 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 (13) 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? (14) — I can say that he deduces it from [the exegesis of] the ‘Others’. (15) 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. (16) 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 (17) is

---

(1). ↑ The animal is Piggul only if this, sc. to eat it after time, was his only intention. But if he also expressed another which would disqualify the sacrifice without rendering it Piggul, this intention negatives the other; cf. Mishnah on 27b and infra b.
(2). ↑ Since the intention of eating it after time has already been dealt with.
(3). ↑ He understands ‘it shall be’ to intimate that both these illegitimate intentions rank as one and combine. Thus, if he intended eating half as much as an olive after time and half as much as an olive without bounds (the standard of disqualification is an olive) the intentions combine to invalidate the sacrifice.
(4). ↑ V. notes supra 28b.
(5). ↑ For it is unnecessary in respect of after time, as stated supra 28a and b, while on Raba's present exegesis it is also irrelevant in respect of without bounds.
(6). ↑ It is disqualified only if he intends to eat it in a place where the blood is sprinkled, the flesh is eaten, and the emurim (q.v. Glos.) are burnt, e.g., without the Temple court. This excludes an intention to partake thereof in the Hekal, since the flesh is not eaten, nor are the emurim burnt there. So Rashi. Tosaf. gives several other explanations.
(7). ↑ ‘Third’ intimates after time, and in the same verse without bounds is hinted at too, as already explained. Hence ‘third’ here can have that same significance as is now attributed to it in the pericope ‘Ye shall be holy’.
(8). ↑ I.e., ‘third’ indicates a place with that threefold function, while Piggul is a general term denoting all places.
(9). ↑ Surely not. If it was sacrificed with the proper intention, and so was fit, surely it cannot become retrospectively unfit because he eats it on the third day.
(10). ↑ When a Zab or a Zabah (q.v. Glos.) cease to discharge, they must count seven consecutive clean days without any discharge. During this period they are presumed to be clean, yet a discharge within the seven days undoes the days which have already passed and they become retrospectively unclean for that time too, and they must count seven days anew. Similarly, according to Biblical law a niddah (q.v. Glos.) can cleanse herself seven days after her menstrual flow commenced. During the following eleven days, which are called the eleven days between the menses, she cannot become a niddah again, it being axiomatic that a discharge of blood in that period is not a sign of niddah, but may be symptomatic of gonorrhea. A discharge on one or two days within the eleven renders her unclean for that period only, and if she has a ritual bath (Tebillah) the following morning she is clean. Yet if she has another discharge on the same day after the ritual bath, she is retrospectively unclean for the whole day, and retrospectively defiles any human beings or utensils with which she came into contact. Should she experience three discharges on three consecutive days within that period she becomes unclean as a Zabah; hence on the first and the second days she is called ‘one who watches from day to day’, to see whether she will be unclean for those days only, or as a Zabah.
(11). ↑ He is henceforth unfit to officiate.
(12). ↑ Deut. XXIII, 22.
(13). ↑ ‘Others’ often refers to R. Meir, Hor. 13b.
(14). ↑ Seeing that he utilizes ‘it’ for a different purpose.
(15). ↑ Since according to them ‘it shall not be imputed’ is necessary to teach that there is no unfitness through the sacrifice being eaten on the third day. Scripture obviously does not refer to the unfitness of the priest, for if it did, how could I think that he is unfit? Not he has done wrong but the eater.
(16). ↑ The Hebrew is not applicable to a priest.
(17). ↑ The firstling must be sacrificed within its first year. If it is not, its owner transgresses the injunction, Thou shalt not delay.