Daf 90 — Zevachim 90 Summary

# Zevachim Daf 90 – Resumen del Shiur de Reb Eli Stefansky Resumen diario de chazarah para Zevachim Daf 90 Este resumen cubre los temas y discusiones clave de la daf, incluyendo las principales sugyot, machloket y conclusiones halájicas prácticas. ## Overview of the Daf Daf 90 continues the discussion from the previous daf concerning the various types of **pigul** (invalidating an offering due to improper intent regarding time or place) and their implications. The *sugya* branches into examining the specific conditions under which pigul applies, particularly in relation to different parts of the sacrificial process and different types of offerings. A significant portion of the daf is dedicated to a *machlokes* between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan regarding whether pigul can apply to an offering that is *pasul* (invalidated) for reasons other than pigul itself. ## Key Sugyot and Discussions ### 1. Pigul on a Pasul Korban The central *machlokes* on this daf revolves around whether an offering that is already *pasul* for another reason can become *pigul*. * **Rebbi Meir's Position:** Rebbi Meir holds that a *korban* (offering) which is *pasul* for any reason *cannot* become *pigul*. His reasoning is based on the principle that *ein tokef le'tofel* – "there is no validity to a secondary (invalid) act." If the *korban* is already invalid, an improper intention (pigul) cannot further invalidate it, nor can it cause the stringent penalties associated with pigul (karet for eating it, invalidation of the blood). For Rebbi Meir, pigul applies only to a *kasher* (kosher/valid) offering that *could* have been validly eaten or offered. * **Rabbanan's Position:** The Rabbanan disagree, asserting that a *korban* can become *pigul* even if it is already *pasul*. They argue that pigul is a separate category of *p'sul* (invalidation) that can attach to an offering regardless of its prior status. Their view implies that the *kohen's* improper intention regarding time still has halachic consequence, even if the offering was already compromised. The *Gemara* provides various examples to illustrate this *machlokes*, such as an offering slaughtered *ba'laila* (at night) or *chutz l'zmano* (beyond its designated time). * **Practical Implications:** The difference between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan has significant ramifications. If Rebbi Meir is correct, eating such a *korban* would not incur *karet* (divine excision), nor would its blood be invalidated due to pigul. If the Rabbanan are correct, the full force of pigul's stringencies would apply. The *halacha* generally follows the Rabbanan in this matter. ### 2. Pigul and the Mincha Offering The *Gemara* delves into the application of pigul to the *Mincha* (meal) offering. The principles are similar to animal offerings, but with specific nuances. * **Intention during Kemitza (taking a handful):** For a *Mincha* offering, the critical act for pigul is the *kemitza* (taking a handful of flour/oil). If the *kohen* performing the *kemitza* intends to eat the *remnants* (the part not offered on the altar) or offer the *kometz* (handful) *b'chutz l'zmano* (beyond its designated time) or *b'chutz limkomo* (outside its designated place), the entire *Mincha* becomes *pigul*. * **No Pigul on the Remnant's Consumption Intention (if no Kemitza yet):** An important distinction is made: if the intention to eat the *remnants* outside of time/place occurs *before* *kemitza*, it does not create pigul. The core principle is that pigul applies at a stage where a significant, binding act of the *korban* process is performed. For the *Mincha*, *kemitza* is that act. ### 3. Pigul and the Blood The *Gemara* discusses whether the pigul intention regarding the *blood* of an offering has the same status as pigul regarding the *meat*. * **Blood Sprinkling:** If a *kohen* slaughters an offering intending to *sprinkle its blood* *b'chutz l'zmano* or *b'chutz limkomo*, the offering still becomes *pigul*, and its meat is forbidden to be eaten. This demonstrates that the pigul intention can relate to specific parts of the service, not just the consumption. * **The *Mishnah's* Formulation:** The *Gemara* analyzes the *Mishnah's* phrasing "החושב לאכול בחוץ, או לזרוק בחוץ" (one who intends to eat outside, or to sprinkle outside), and clarifies that "eating" refers to the meat/remnants, and "sprinkling" refers to the blood. This reinforces the idea that pigul can apply through improper intent for either the consumption of the edible parts or the core ritual act of sprinkling the blood. ## Halachic Conclusions * The *halacha* generally follows the **Rabbanan** that pigul *can* apply to an offering already *pasul* for another reason, thereby potentially imposing more stringent penalties. * For a *Mincha* offering, the critical stage for pigul is **kemitza**. Improper intention at this stage, regarding the *kometz's* offering or the *shiurim's* (remnants) consumption, causes pigul. * Pigul intention regarding the *blood's* sprinkling (e.g., *b'chutz l'zmano*) is equally effective in rendering the offering *pigul*. * The principles of pigul are highly sensitive to the *kohen's* intention at specific, key stages of the sacrificial process. ## Further Elaboration and Insights The extensive analysis on Daf 90 highlights the meticulous nature of *halacha* concerning sacrificial offerings. Every step, every intent, carries profound halachic weight. The *machlokes* between Rebbi Meir and Rabbanan underscores a fundamental debate in *Torah* law: to what extent can an invalid act or object be further affected by another invalid act, and what are the limits of "stacking" *p'sulim*? This is not merely an academic exercise; it determines whether one incurs *karet* or other severe penalties. Thedaf also reinforces the idea that the "mind" (machshavah) of the *kohen* is central to the validity of the *korban* throughout its various stages.