תניא אחרים אומרים הקדים מולים לערלים כשר ערלים למולים פסול מאי שנא מולין לערלים דכשר דכולה ערלה בעינן וליכא ערלים למולין נמי כולה ערלה בעינן וליכא
say, If he put the circumcised before the uncircumcised,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he first intended it for the former and then for the latter.');"><sup>34</sup></span> it is fit; the uncircumcised before the circumcised, it is disqualified. Wherein does [the case where he put] circumcised before uncircumcised differ, that it is fit, - because we require [them to be] all uncircumcised:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to disqualify the sacrifice.');"><sup>35</sup></span> then [where he put] the uncircumcised before the circumcised too, we require all [to be] uncircumcised, which is absent?
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
Rebbi Simlai came to Rebbi Jonathan. He said to him, teach me homiletics. He answered him, I have a tradition from my forefathers not to teach homiletics either to a Babylonian or to a Southerner, since they are gross in spirit and have little learning. And you are from Nahardea and live in the South. He said to him, tell me this one thing, what is the difference between “for its purpose and not for its purpose” and “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”? He answered him, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, the disqualification is intrinsic. “For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, the disqualification is of others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, you cannot pick out the disqualified from the qualified. [“For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified.] “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy