Talmud for Pesachim 146:4

אלא לא תימא שחטו סתם כשר לשום עולה אלא אימא שחטו לשום עולה כשר אלמא בעי עקירה

he slaughtered it without a specified purpose, express abrogation not being necessary. But the reason in the Baraitha is a different one, as stated. Thus: at midday the owner was still alive and therefore it was immediately eligible for a Passover offering; the owner's death disqualified it from that purpose, and he holds that it can never be eligible again in such circumstances. What is the reason? Is it not because it does not require abrogation? - Whence [does this follow]: perhaps it is because he agrees with the tanna of the School of Rabbah b. Abbuha, who said: Even piggul too requires disfigurement, because we learn the meaning of 'iniquity' from nothar. For if you should not say thus, where the owners become defiled, what can be said, for surely that certainly requires abrogation, for R. Hiyya b. Gamada said, it was thrown out from the mouth of the company and they said: [The circumstances are] e.g.. that its owners were unclean through a dead body and relegated to the second Passover? Hence it is clear as we answered at first: this is [in accordance with] R. Joseph b. Honai.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it¹⁴⁶The last sentence in the Mishnah, that if the owner(s) lost interest, died, or became impure, the slaughterer on the Sabbath is not liable. A difficulty is created by idiomatic rabbinic Hebrew, where “owner” is בְּעָלִים with the verb in the plural whether there is one owner or there are many owners. is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated there¹⁴⁷Mishnah 8:7. R. Jehudah may read the Mishnah here that if a Pesaḥ was slaughtered for a number of subscribers, and all of them except one either lost interest, or died, or became impure, the sacrifice still is valid even though it would not have been permitted to be slaughtered if the facts had been known beforehand.: “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single individual, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Mana: Where do we find “not liable and qualified”? He told him, here we stated “not liable”, and there we stated “qualified”¹⁴⁸In Mishnah 8:7 R. Jehudah only says “one does not slaughter;” he does not state that if one slaughtered for a single eater the Pesaḥ was disqualified. Therefore it is qualified even for R. Jehudah.. But about all of them did Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, it should lose its shape and be brought to be burned¹⁴⁹Babli 73b. Since the disqualification is extrinsic, the sacrifice cannot be burned immediately; one has to wait until it must be burned even if it is treated as well-being offering.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose, one understands if they died or became impure. If the owners became disinterested¹⁵⁰In the first two cases, it is an accident and one understands that the sacrifice cannot be burned immediately. But if the owner became disinterested, the animal may not be slaughtered. If it was slaughtered anyhow, the action is illegitimate and the carcass should be burned immediately.? If they are alive, does disqualification qualify? It is disqualified. If after it was slaughtered, can one become disinterested after slaughter? Since he has the right to become disinterested, the disqualification qualifies¹⁵¹K: “It must be R. Simeon’s, since R. Simeon said, one may become disinterested after slaughtering” (up to the time of pouring the blood, Mishnah 8:3) is suspect as lectio facilior. In keeping with the earlier statements, one may read the scribe’s text as implying that, since before slaughter one may subscribe or cancel the subscription at will, cancelling after slaughter is an excusable error, not intrinsic, and has to follow the general rules of sacrifices becoming disqualified by extrinsic factors., and it needs {losing its} shape.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse