The Eddie and Edith edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Zevachim, has been dedicated by our good friend and student of the shiur Daf Yomi, Binyamin HaKohen, affectionately known as Benny C. He has dedicated this Masechet, and with the help of Hashem, may he achieve success and prosperity. As he is a Kohen, may he, with God's help, serve in the Beit HaMikdash when Moshiach comes, alongside the other Kohanim, in the merit of his dedication to this Masechet, which specifically discusses the avoda of the Kohanim in the Beit HaMikdash concerning the korbanot. Today's Daf, Mem Bet, is being studied l'iluy nishmat Avraham ben Esther, may the soul of Avraham be granted rest in Gan Eden, Amen. Today's Daf is also for refuah sheleimah for Mickey ben Jamie, for the success of Binyamin Mordechai ben Esther, and for refuah sheleimah for Chana Chaya bat Shoshana Rose. May it be Your will, and we say Amen.
We are currently on Mem Aleph, Amud Bet, two lines from the bottom, where it states "Mativei." We are analyzing an opinion of Rabbi Meir regarding a concept called pigul. Pigul occurs when there is a thought to consume the korban beyond its designated time, rendering it pigul. Rabbi Meir established a rule stating that one cannot create pigul with a half item, meaning that the pigul must apply to the entire item, not just a portion of it. For example, when dealing with a mincha, one must have the intention regarding the whole mincha, not just half of it. This was Rabbi Meir's view, as we understood it.
There was another interpretation of Rabbi Meir that we discussed, which states that "kol ha'oseh al da'at rishona hu oseh." This means that whatever one does, if they initiated the action with a specific intention, and later acted without any intention, we assume that their intention remained consistent with the initial thought. For instance, if one had the intention of pigul at the beginning and then acted without thought later, Rabbi Meir asserts that the latter action is considered to continue the initial intention. This understanding was attributed to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish's explanation of Rabbi Meir.
The Gemara now seeks to explore whether Rabbi Meir indeed holds this concept of "al da'at rishona" or not. Mativei. The Gemara poses a question: "B'meh devarim amurim?" In what case do we say that if there is pigul on the dam? The Gemara explains that if there is pigul on the dam, it indicates that the intention was to sprinkle it outside its designated time, thus making the korban pigul. When does this occur? It is when the dam is sprinkled on the outer mizbeach, as even a single sprinkling on the outer mizbeach serves to atone. Therefore, there is pigul even with one sprinkling, since it concerns the entire item.
However, regarding the blood that is placed on the inner mizbeach, such as the 43 sprinklings done on Yom Kippur, the situation differs. The Gemara details that on Yom Kippur, there were specific sprinklings, including those on the parochet and the inner mizbeach. It notes that there are three stages: the first group pertains to the chatat of Yom Kippur, which is sprinkled in the Kodesh HaKodashim; the second is for the sprinkling on the parochet, and the third is on the inner mizbeach. If the Kohen had pigul in any of these sections of the dam, Rabbi Meir states that it is pigul, and there is karet associated with such pigul. The Chachamim argue that one must have pigul in all sections to be liable, not just in part.
The Gemara continues to analyze this distinction. It states that if one had pigul in the first group, it does not necessarily imply that the subsequent groups are also pigul. The reasoning is that even if the first was valid, the second and third could still be pigul. This illustrates that Rabbi Meir maintains that one can indeed have pigul on a half item, contrary to the earlier assertion.
Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avin clarifies that we are discussing a case where the pigul occurred during the shechita of one matir. This indicates that a pigul at the time of shechita affects the entire animal, as the shechita encompasses all aspects of the korban.
The Gemara raises a question: if that is the case, what is the rationale of the Chachamim, who state that there is no pigul? The Gemara explains that according to Rabbi Eliezer, if a kezayit of any of the components is brought outside, one is liable. However, Rabbi Eliezer argues that an avodah performed with only part of the korban does not constitute a complete avodah. Therefore, if one has pigul during the shechita but only performs partial acts with the blood, it does not render the korban pigul.
The Gemara further clarifies that for a korban to be considered pigul, the intention must be present throughout the entire process. If the intention was only during the shechita and not during the blood sprinklings, it does not establish pigul. Rabbi Eliezer's position is that only a complete avodah is deemed significant.
In summary, Rabbi Meir holds that pigul can apply even partially, while the Chachamim argue that it must encompass all aspects of the korban. The Gemara concludes that Rabbi Eliezer's perspective is that a partial intention does not constitute a valid avodah, thus differing from Rabbi Meir's understanding.