Zevachim Daf 31 זבחים דַף 31

If one first intended to consume a half-zayis חוץ לזמנו, then intended to consume a half-zayis חוץ למקומו, and finally intended another half-zayis חוץ לזמנו, Rava says: ויקץ כישן הפיגול – the פיגול is awakened like one who was sleeping. Meaning, the first חצי זית of חוץ לזמנו, which originally joined the חצי זית of חוץ למקומו to disqualify the korban (without making it פיגול), is able to join with the second חצי זית of חוץ לזמנו to create full פיגול, as if “awakening” from “sleep” (and the חצי זית of חוץ למקומו is not significant enough to prevent the פיגול). Rav Hamnuna says it is עירוב מחשבות – a mixture of intents, because once the חצי זית of חוץ לזמנו joined with the חצי זית of חוץ למקומו, it can no longer make פיגול. Rav Dimi quoted בר קפרא teaching that in a case of a חצי זית חוץ למקומו, then two consecutive half-zeisim of חוץ לזמנו, it is פיגול, because the two half-zeisim of חוץ לזמנו are consecutive (as opposed to the original case). Ravin quoted בר קפרא as only discussing where the two half-zeisim of חוץ לזמנו were before the חצי זית of חוץ למקומו. Rav Ashi quoted בר קפרא as fully agreeing with Rava above.

Rebbe Yannai said: חישב שיאכלוהו כלבים למחר – if one intended that dogs would consume [the korban] the next day, it is פיגול, because a passuk says: ואת איזבל יאכלו הכלבים בחלק יזרעאל – and the dogs will consume Izevel in the portion of Yizre’el, using the term "אכילה" in the context of dogs’ consumption. Rebbe Ami asked that if so, one who intends for fire to “consume” the korban the next day should also make פיגול, since a passuk says: תאכלהו אש לא נופח – a fire which needs no blowing shall consume him, using the term "אכילה" regarding fire as well. Yet, our Mishnah states that intent to eat a חצי זית and להקטיר – to burn a חצי זית on the מזבח the next day does not together make פיגול, proving that the burning of a fire is not “consumption”!? The Gemara answers that if he would have used the term "אכילה" (intending for a fire to “consume” a חצי זית the next day), the two “consumptions” would combine. Since he used the term "הקטרה" – burning, they do not combine, because the two terms are considered different intents.

Rav Ashi asked: חישב לאכול כזית בשני בני אדם מהו – if one intended for a כזית to be eaten together by two people the next day, what is the halachah? בתר מחשבה אזלינן – Do we follow his intention, where there is a total כזית to be consumed and it makes פיגול, or בתר אוכלין אזלינן – we follow the consumers, and since neither of them consumes a full כזית, it does not make פיגול? Abaye presents a proof from our Mishnah, which teaches that intent for a חצי זית to be eaten and a חצי זית to be burned on the מזבח does not make פיגול because they are different categories, implying that a parallel case of two people eating a כזית would combine to make פיגול. Rava asked, if one intended for a כזית to be eaten ביתר מכדי אכילת פרס – in longer than enough time to eat half [a loaf of bread], does this make פיגול? לאכילת גבוה מדמינן ליה – Do we compare [human consumption] to the consumption of [the מזבח] (since they are compared in the passuk), which has no limit of כדי אכילת פרס, or לאכילת הדיוט מדמינן ליה – do we compare it to a commoner’s consumption, limiting it to כדי אכילת פרס?