1) CAUSING "PIGUL" BY COMBINING THE "ACHILAH" AND "HAKTARAH" OF A KORBAN
QUESTION: The Mishnah records a dispute between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Eliezer with regard to whether a Korban becomes Pigul when it is sacrificed with a thought to eat, Chutz l'Zemano, a part of the animal that is normally burned on the Mizbe'ach (the Eimurim), or to burn on the Mizbe'ach a part that is normally eaten (the meat). The Mishnah continues and says that the thought that creates Pigul must involve an amount of meat or Eimurim that is more than a k'Zayis. The Mishnah adds that if the person offering the Korban has in mind to eat half of a k'Zayis of meat Chutz l'Zemano, and to burn half of a k'Zayis of Eimurim Chutz l'Zemano, the Korban remains valid because a thought of eating (Achilah) and a thought of burning on the Mizbe'ach (Haktarah) do not combine.
Why does the Mishnah need to teach that Achilah and Haktarah do not combine, when the Mishnah earlier (29b) already teaches that? What does the Mishnah add by repeating this law here? (TOSFOS YOM TOV)
ANSWERS:
(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV suggests that the Mishnah is teaching that a thought to eat a k'Zayis of meat Chutz l'Zemano in an amount of time that is more than "Kedei Achilas Peras" is able to create Pigul. The Gemara earlier (31b) attempts to prove this Halachah from the Mishnah there (29b), which says that a thought of eating half of a k'Zayis and burning half of a k'Zayis do not combine to make the Korban become Pigul. This implies that a thought of eating an entire k'Zayis in the same amount of time that it takes to eat half of a k'Zayis and to burn half of a k'Zayis (i.e., more than "Kedei Achilas Peras," since it takes much more time than "Kedei Achilas Peras" to burn a k'Zayis of Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach) does cause the Korban to become Pigul. The Gemara refutes the proof by saying that when the Mishnah mentions a thought of burning half of a k'Zayis, it might be referring only to burning it in a very large fire, where the burning of a k'Zayis would take less time than "Kedei Achilas Peras."
The Tosfos Yom Tov suggests that the Mishnah here repeats the Halachah of having a thought to eat half of a k'Zayis and to burn half of a k'Zayis in order to show that it is not referring only to a thought to burn it in a large fire on the Mizbe'ach. Therefore, it can be inferred from the Mishnah that a thought to eat a k'Zayis in more time than "Kedei Achilas Peras" creates Pigul.
The Tosfos Yom Tov adds that this might explain why the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 14:10) rules that a thought of eating the meat in more time than "Kedei Achilas Peras" does create Pigul, even though the Gemara (31b) does not reach a Halachic conclusion regarding the matter. The Rambam reached his conclusion based on an inference from the Mishnah, which repeats the Halachah of a thought to eat half of a k'Zayis and to burn half of a k'Zayis in order to allude to this Halachah.
However, this approach is somewhat forced. If this is the intent of the Mishnah, then why does the Gemara itself (on 31b) not prove the Halachah in the case of one who has a thought to eat a k'Zayis in more time than "Kedei Achilas Peras" from the Mishnah?
(b) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#6), RASHASH, and others point out that RASHI in Menachos (17a) asks this question. The Mishnayos there (12b and 17a) are identical to the Mishnayos here (Zevachim 29b and 35a), except that those Mishnayos discuss Menachos (flour offerings) while the Mishnayos here discuss Korbanos (animal offerings). Rashi there (17a, DH ha'Kometz) asks why the Mishnah repeats the Halachah of a thought of eating half a k'Zayis (of a Minchah) and burning half of a k'Zayis. Rashi answers that the Mishnah there, and the Mishnah here, cite the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer who rules that a thought to eat something that is normally offered on the Mizbe'ach, and vice versa, can create Pigul. The Mishnah therefore needs to teach that even according to Rebbi Eliezer, a thought to eat half of a k'Zayis and a thought to burn half of a k'Zayis do not combine.
In what way, though, is the Halachah of having a thought to eat half of a k'Zayis and to burn half of a k'Zayis related to the ruling of Rebbi Eliezer, who says that a thought to eat the Eimurim makes the Korban become Pigul? Why would one have thought that Rebbi Eliezer does not agree that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine with each other?
1. Rashi there explains that Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies the Korban as Pigul through a thought to eat the Eimurim only mid'Rabanan, but not mid'Oraisa. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the Rabanan enacted a Gezeirah that invalidates the Korban as Pigul when one has a thought to eat part of the Korban that is normally burned on the Mizbe'ach, lest a person has a thought to eat, Chutz l'Zemano, part of the Korban that is normally eaten. One might have thought that Rebbi Eliezer maintains that there is an additional Gezeirah that the Korban becomes Pigul when a person has a thought to eat only half of a k'Zayis Chutz l'Zemano, lest a person have a thought to eat a full k'Zayis Chutz l'Zemano. The Mishnah teaches, therefore, that even according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Korban is valid if the person thought only about half of a k'Zayis. Even if he thought to burn, Chutz l'Zemano, another half of a k'Zayis, the Korban remains valid, since thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine.
2. The SHITAH MEKUBETZES there (#10) points out that the Gemara in Menachos seems to derive a source for Rebbi Eliezer's ruling from the words of the verse. Therefore, it is difficult to assert that Rebbi Eliezer's ruling is only a Gezeirah d'Rabanan. The Shitah Mekubetzes instead suggests that since Rebbi Eliezer maintains that a thought to eat a k'Zayis of Eimurim makes a Korban become Pasul, one might have thought that Rebbi Eliezer maintains that there is a Gezeirah d'Rabanan that disqualifies a Korban which a person offers with a thought to eat, Chutz l'Zemano, half of a k'Zayis of meat and to burn half of a k'Zayis of Eimurim, lest he offer it with a thought to eat half of a k'Zayis of meat and to eat half of a k'Zayis of Eimurim. Therefore, the Mishnah teaches that even Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the Korban is valid, and that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine.
(c) However, the preceding answer is limited to only one opinion in the Gemara earlier (33b). The Amora'im argue about whether the Mishnah (29b) which teaches that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine is following the opinion of the Rabanan or Rebbi Eliezer. According to Abaye, who maintains that the Mishnah there is following the opinion of the Rabanan, Rashi's answer that the Mishnah here teaches that even Rebbi Eliezer agrees with this Halachah makes sense. However, according to Rebbi Yirmeyah, even the Mishnah there (29b) is following the view of Rebbi Eliezer! Why, then, must the Mishnah here repeat that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with this view?
The Shitah Mekubetzes in Menachos answers as follows. According to Rebbi Yirmeyah -- who maintains that the Mishnah there, which says that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine, is following the view of Rebbi Eliezer -- the Mishnah here repeats the Halachah for a different reason. Had the Tana taught this Halachah only in the earlier Mishnah, and then taught, in the following Mishnah, that Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan argue about whether or not a thought to eat Eimurim creates Pigul, the Halachah would have been decided against Rebbi Eliezer, because it would have been a situation of "Stam v'Achar Kach Machlokes" -- the "Stam Mishnah" (on 29b) would have been following the view of Rebbi Eliezer, and it would have been followed by a Machlokes in the Mishnah (35a) citing both opinions. In such a case, the Halachah does not follow the opinion expressed in the "Stam Mishnah." (Yevamos 42b, Avodah Zarah 7a; see Background there.) The Mishnah, therefore, repeats that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine -- a statement which, according to Rebbi Yirmeyah, is necessary only according to Rebbi Eliezer, so that the Mishnayos will be in the order of "Machlokes v'Achar Kach Stam" in order to teach that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Eliezer.
According to the Shitah Mekubetzes, why does the first Mishnah need to mention this Halachah, that Achilah and Haktarah do not combine? It should be recorded only in the Mishnah here, where it will be a "Machlokes v'Achar Kach Stam," and it is unnecessary to mention it in the earlier Mishnah. Apparently, it is mentioned in the earlier Mishnah only as an aside, "Derech Agav," since the Mishnah there discusses a case of a thought of half of a k'Zayis.
(d) TOSFOS cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes in Menachos writes the opposite of the explanation given above in the previous answer. The Mishnah earlier (29b) is where this Halachah actually belongs. In the Mishnah here, the Halachah that thoughts of Achilah and Haktarah do not combine was mentioned only as an aside, "Derech Agav," since the Mishnah mentions the Halachah of having a thought to eat part of the Korban which is normally offered on the Mizbe'ach. (Apparently, Tosfos means that after the Mishnah first mentions that even having a thought to burn, Chutz l'Zemano, something that is normally burned on the Mizbe'ach does not cause Pigul if it involves less than a k'Zayis, the Mishnah then mentions that a thought of half of a k'Zayis of Achilah cannot combine with a thought of Haktarah.)
35b----------------------------------------35b
2) HAVING A "PIGUL" THOUGHT ABOUT THE "SHELIL" OR "SHILYA"
QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that a thought of Pigul affects the Korban only when the thought involves eating something that is completely edible. A thought to eat, Chutz l'Zemano, something that is barely edible does not make the Korban become Pigul. Therefore, a thought to eat the Shelil (fetus) or Shilya (placenta) Chutz l'Zemano does not make the Korban become Pigul. The Gemara questions whether the Shelil can become Pigul if the person offering the Korban has a thought to eat the edible meat of the animal Chutz l'Zemano. Perhaps just as a thought to eat the Shelil Chutz l'Zemano does not create Pigul, so, too, even when the Korban becomes Pigul because of a thought to eat the meat Chutz l'Zemano, the Shelil is not considered Pigul. On the other hand, perhaps once the Korban becomes Pigul through a thought to eat the meat Chutz l'Zemano, the Shelil becomes Pigul as well.
The Gemara attempts to answer this question from a Beraisa which says that if the Kohen thought to eat the meat of the Parim ha'Nisrafim, the Parim do not become Pigul (because his thought involved something that is supposed to be burned and not eaten; this follows the opinion of the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah). The Gemara infers from this statement that if the Kohen had in mind to offer the Eimurim of the Parim Chutz l'Zemano, then the meat of the Parim does become Pigul. This implies that even something that cannot make Pigul if one thinks to eat it Chutz l'Zemano nevertheless can become Pigul.
How can the Gemara prove this point from the fact that the meat of Parim can become Pigul? Rashi (DH v'Shavin) points out that if a Kohen has in mind to burn the meat of the Parim Chutz l'Zemano, and he expressed the thought by saying, "I want the fire to eat these Parim tomorrow," it will become Pigul, because there is no difference between his own eating and the Mizbe'ach's "eating." Accordingly, it certainly is possible for a thought about the meat of the Parim ha'Nisrafim to make the animal Pigul. Since it can create Pigul, it can become Pigul! It is not comparable to a thought about the Shelil which cannot make Pigul at all. (TAHARAS HA'KODESH, and the BRISKER RAV cited by the MINCHAS AVRAHAM)
ANSWER: A similar question may be asked about the Shelil and Shilya themselves. The Gemara (31a) teaches that if a Kohen has a thought to feed to dogs the meat of a Korban Chutz l'Zemano, the Korban becomes Pigul. This is because the dogs' eating is considered Achilah. It certainly is normal for a dog to eat a Shelil and Shilya. Therefore, it should be possible to make the Korban become Pigul by having a thought to feed the Shelil or Shilya to a dog! Just as they can make the Korban become Pigul, they should become Pigul themselves when one thinks about eating the meat of the Korban Chutz l'Zemano.
Furthermore, if the Kohen has a thought to "feed" the Shelil or Shilya to a fire, that should also make the Korban become Pigul. Why, then, should there be any question regarding the status of the Shelil and Shilya when the meat becomes Pigul?
The verse states with regard to the prohibition against eating Pigul, "veha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles Mimenu" (Vayikra 7:18). This implies that the Chiyuv Kares applies only to eating something in the normal manner, which the verse calls "Achilah" ("ha'Ocheles"). When the Gemara suggests that the Shelil should not be prohibited with Kares if the Korban becomes Pigul because a thought for a person to eat the Shelil Chutz l'Zemano does not create Pigul, its intent is to prove that when a person eats a Shelil, it is not classified as a normal manner of Achilah. Therefore, such an Achilah cannot carry the Isur Kares of Pigul, since it will not satisfy the verse of "veha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles." It makes no difference that a thought to feed the Shelil to the dogs or to a fire Chutz l'Zemano will make the Korban become Pigul, because that does not prove that when a man eats a Shelil, it is classified as an act of Achilah. This appears to be the intention of Rashi (35b DH Eimurin) as well. (M. KORNFELD)