Commentary for Pesachim 125:7

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוחט את הפסח על החמץ עובר בלא תעשה ר' יהודה אומר אף התמיד רבי שמעון אומר הפסח בארבעה עשר לשמו חייב ושלא לשמו פטור ושאר כל הזבחים בין לשמן ובין שלא לשמן פטור

[But] the second clause means where he stated '[I cut] the first organ for uncircumcised, the second organ for circumcised' so that at the first organ circumcised are not included. Now R'Meir is consistent with his opinion, for he maintained, You can render [a sacrifice] piggul at half of that which makes it permitted; while the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the view of the Mishnah supra 61a.');">⁹</span> are consistent with their view, for they maintain, You cannot render [a sacrifice] piggul at half of that which makes it permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'That which makes it permitted' (the mattir) here is the slaughtering; half of that etc., is the cutting of one organ. R. Meir holds that the intention expressed at the cutting of the first organ determines the status of the sacrifice. Hence, if this intention was to eat it after time, it is piggul; while in the present case, since it was for the uncircumcised, it is disqualified. The Rabbis, however, hold that an illegitimate intention at the first organ cannot render it piggul, and in the same way an intention for uncircumcised at the first organ does not disqualify it.');">¹⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Pesachim 125:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.