Q&A: Pigul Prospectively Retroactive
Pigul Prospectively Retroactive
Question
Have a good week, Rabbi,
“And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted; it shall not be credited to the one who offered it; it shall be pigul, and the person who eats from it shall bear his iniquity.”
There is a dispute about how to understand this verse between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in tractate Zevahim 29a:
Our Rabbis taught: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is at all eaten” — Rabbi Eliezer said: Bend your ear to hear: the verse is speaking about one who intends to eat from his sacrifice on the third day. Or perhaps it speaks simply about one who actually eats from his sacrifice on the third day? Would you say that? Once it was valid, should it then revert and become invalid? Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yes, we do find this regarding a zav, a zavah, and a woman observing a day corresponding to a day, that they are presumed pure, and once they see discharge they overturn that status. So too, do not be surprised here, that even though it had become valid, it can revert and become invalid. He said to him: But the verse says, “the one who offered” — it becomes invalid at the time of offering, and it does not become invalid on the third day. Or perhaps “the one who offered” means the priest who offers it? When it says “it,” it is speaking about the sacrifice, not the priest.
I seem to remember that you spoke about a concept called “prospectively retroactive,” and I thought that maybe it could explain Rabbi Akiva’s view. If the verse had said “it shall not be accepted for the one who offered it” in the past tense, then one would need to understand from the verse that the pigul takes effect prospectively retroactively — from the moment of eating on the third day retroactively. But now that it is written in the present tense — “it shall not be accepted, the one who offers it” — the verse should be understood to mean that the pigul takes effect retroactively from the moment of the offering. That way one could also avoid uprooting the plain meaning of the verse. What do you think?
Answer
That is בהחלט possible. And in fact it is not enough here to claim merely that it takes effect retroactively, but specifically prospectively retroactive, since until now it was valid and now it becomes invalid retroactively.
On this concept (which originates with Rabbi Shimon Shkop), see Rabbi Shmuel’s lectures on Makkot, siman 420.
Discussion on Answer
I haven’t looked into it carefully, but it seems that the conclusion is prospectively retroactive: after having become valid, it reverts and becomes invalid.
I was also relying on Rashi’s commentary on this verse:
“And if any is at all eaten, etc.” — the verse speaks of one who, at the time of slaughter, intends to eat it on the third day. One might think that if he actually ate from it on the third day, it becomes invalid retroactively; therefore Scripture says, “it shall not be credited to the one who offered it” — it becomes invalid at the time of offering, and it does not become invalid on the third day. And this is its meaning: at the time of its offering, this thought should not enter his mind; and if he did think it, it is pigul.”
It seems from Rashi that there is an initial assumption that the disqualification occurs on the third day retroactively, and since that doesn’t fit with the word “the one who offered,” from which it sounds like it becomes invalid at the time of offering, one must explain that we are dealing with a thought, at the moment of offering, about eating on the third day. But one could suggest another explanation: that there are two kinds of “retroactively” — prospectively, and from the outset. In the initial assumption they thought this was the first kind, prospectively (from the third day onward), and from the conclusion one can arrive at the second kind, from the outset (from the time of offering and onward retroactively).
Very true. That is indeed the Jewish law regarding pigul: it becomes invalid immediately, and it is not necessary for the act outside its proper time to actually occur. But as I understood the Talmud there, that is not what they wrote. Maybe I misunderstood it (as I said, I didn’t look into it carefully enough).
As I recall, Hanska, in his three articles in HaMa’ayan 1977–78, brought pigul as an example of combining plain meaning and midrashic exposition, with a detailed explanation of this exposition.
Just to clarify, I meant that the initial assumption was that the pigul takes effect prospectively retroactive (from the third day), and the verse comes to teach us that it actually takes effect already from the time of the offering, retroactively, and not from the third day.