Pesachim 119

או דילמא בשתי עבודות תנן ואפי' לר' מאיר דאמר תפוס לשון ראשון הני מילי בעבודה אחת אבל בשתי עבודות מודה דמיפסיל

or perhaps we learned [it only] in respect to two services, and even according to R'Meir, who said, 'Seize the first expression.' that applies only in the case of one service, but in the case of two services he agrees t it is disqualified?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the first hypothesis the Mishnah refers even to one service, and will certainly also hold good in the case of two services; while on the second hypothesis the Mishnah refers to two services only, but will not hold good in the case of one service; Rashi infra 60b. s.v. ,jt vsucgc tphx and as is evident from the context.');">¹</span>

אמרי אהייא אי נימא אשלא לשמו ולשמו בין בעבודה אחת בין בשתי עבודות בין לר' מאיר בין לר' יוסי איפסיל ליה מקמייתא דהא לרבי יוסי נמי אף בגמר דבריו אדם נתפס אית ליה אלא אלשמו ושלא לשמו מאי

- I will tell you: to which [case does this problem refer]? Shall we say, to [the case where it was] for another purpose [first] and [then] for its own purpose, then whether it was in connection with one service or in connection with two services, according to both R'Meir and R'Jose it was disqualified by the first [wrongful intention], for according to R'Jose too, he holds that a man is held responsible for his last words also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they too must be taken into account, but his first words certainly cannot be ignored.');">²</span>

ת"ש הפסח ששחטו שלא לשמו וקבל והלך וזרק שלא לשמו היכי דמי אי נימא כדקתני למה לי עד דמחשב לכולהו מקמייתא איפסיל ליה

- Rather, [the problem refers] to [where it was done] for its own purpose [first] and then for another purpose: what then? - Come and hear: IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND CAUGHT [THE BLOOD]. AND WENT AND SPRINKLED IT FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE: how is it meant?

אלא לאו הכי קתני הפסח ששחטו שלא לשמו אי נמי שחטו לשמו וקבל והלך וזרק שלא לשמו אי נמי שחטו וקבל והלך לשמו וזרק שלא לשמו דהויא לה שתי עבודות

Shall we say, [literally] as he teaches it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that all four services were performed for another purpose.');">³</span> why must he intend all of them [for a wrong purpose]?

אימא סיפא לשמו ושלא לשמו היכי דמי אי נימא בשתי עבודות היינו רישא אלא לאו בעבודה אחת ור' יוסי היא דאמר אף בגמר דבריו אדם נתפס

From the first it is disqualified! Hence he must teach thus: IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, or even if he slaughtered it for its own purpose, but HE CAUGHT [ITS BLOOD], AND WENT AND SPRINKLED IT FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The text seems to be in slight disorder, v. D.S. The general meaning is, however, clear.]');">⁴</span> or even if he slaughtered it, caught [its blood], and went [with it] for its own purpose.

לא לעולם בשתי עבודות ורישא דקאי בשחיטה וקא מחשב בשחיטה א"נ קאי בזריקה וקא מחשב בזריקא

but SPRINKLED IT FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, so that it is [a question of] two services.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this clause states the case of a legal purpose at one service and an illegal purpose at another service.');">⁵</span> Then consider the second clause: FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE: how is it meant?

סיפא דקאי בשחיטה וקחשיב בזריקה דאמר הריני שוחט את הפסח לשמו לזרוק דמו שלא לשמו וקמ"ל דמחשבין מעבודה לעבודה והיינו בעיא דרב פפא

Shall we say. in respect of two services: then it is identical with the first clause! Hence it must surely be in respect of one service, and this agrees with R'Jose, who maintained: A man is held responsible for his last words too! - No.

ת"ש או שלא לשמו ולשמו פסול היכי דמי אי נימא בשתי עבודות השתא לשמו ושלא לשמו אמרת פסול שלא לשמו ולשמו מיבעיא

After all it refers to two services,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And still the two clauses are not identical as it goes on explaining.');">⁶</span> but the first clause [discusses] where he is standing at [engaged in] th slaughtering and intends [with due purpose] in respect of the slaughtering, or again<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. omits: 'or again'.]');">⁷</span>

אלא לאו בעבודה אחת ומדסיפא בעבודה אחת רישא נמי בעבודה אחת

he is standing at the sprinkling and intends [for another purpose] in respect of sprinkling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ['Slaughtering' and 'sprinkling' are taken merely as examples, the same applying to the other services. Each was performed with the due or undue intention, as the case may be, in respect of itself.]');">⁸</span> While the second clause means when he is standing at the slaughtering and intends in respect of the sprinkling, when he [for instance] declares, 'Behold, I slaughter the Passover sacrifice for its own purpose, [but] to sprinkle its blood for another purpose'; and he [the Tanna] informs us that you can intend at one service for another service,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that such intention is taken into account, so that if it is illegitimate the sacrifice is disqualified.');">⁹</span>

לא לעולם בשתי עבודות ובדין הוא דלא איצטריך ליה ואיידי דתנא לשמו ושלא לשמו תנא נמי שלא לשמו ולשמו

and that is R'Papa's question.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Riba: that is why R. Papa asks his question, because the Mishnah affords no solution. Rashba: R. Papa's question as to whether the Mishnah may refer to two services is in such conditions, viz., where an illegitimate intention for one service is expressed in the course of another service.');">¹⁰</span> Come and hear: OR FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE, [IT] IS DISQUALIFIED.

תא שמע שחטו שלא לאוכליו ושלא למנויו לערלים ולטמאין פסול הכא פשיטא בעבודה אחת ומדסיפא בעבודה אחת רישא נמי בעבודה אחת

How is it meant? If we say, in the case of two services, [then] seeing that where [if the first is] for its own purpose and [the second is] for another purpose.

מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא סיפא בעבודה אחת רישא אי בעבודה אחת אי בשתי עבודות

you say that it is disqualified. is it necessary [to state it where it is first] for another purpose and [then] for its own purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the very first intention is illegitimate and disqualifies it; how then is it to regain its validity? The same difficulty arises if the Mishnah refers to one and the same service, but then it can be answered that the Mishnah informs us in the first clause ('FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE') that we do not determine the matter purely by his first words, and in the second clause ('FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE') that the matter is not determined purely by his last words, but that due weight must be given to both.');">¹¹</span>

תא שמע לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו כשר היכי דמי אי נימא בשתי עבודות וטעמא דחשיב בזריקה דאין מחשבת אוכלין בזריקה

Hence it must surely refer to one service, and since the second clause refers to one service, the first clause too refers [also] to one service! - No, after all it refers [only] to two services, and logically indeed it is not required, but because he speaks o 'FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE AND FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE,' he also mentions 'FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE AND FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sake of parallelism.');">¹²</span> Come and hear: If he killed it [the Passover sacrifice] for those who cannot eat it or for those who were no registered for it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Every Paschal lamb required its registered consumers before it was slaughtered, in accordance with Ex. XII, 4. In the present instance he enumerated those for whom he was slaughtering it, all of whom, however, were incapable of eating through old age or sickness (Rashi: none others had registered for it; Tosaf.: others who were capable had also registered for it, but he ignored them in his declaration) , or had not registered for this particular animal.');">¹³</span>

הא בעבודה אחת כגון בשחיטה דמהניא ביה מחשבת אוכלין פסול והא קיימא לן מקצת אוכלין לא פסלא

for uncircumcised<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Uncircumcised' in this connection always means men whose brothers had died through circumcision, and they were afraid of a similar fate. These may not eat thereof, ibid. 48.');">¹⁴</span> or for unclean persons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who may likewise not eat it, being forbidden all sacred flesh. Lev. XXII, 4ff.');">¹⁵</span> it is disqualified. Now here it obviously refers to one service, and since the second clause refers to one service, the first clause too treats [also] of service!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnahs printed on ');">¹⁶</span> - What argument is this? The one is according to its nature, while the other is according to its nature; the second clause [certainly] refers [only] to one service, while the first clause may refer either to o service or to two services.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., either also to one service or exclusively to two services. And the question is, to which?');">¹⁷</span> Come and hear: [If he killed it] for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, it is fit. How is meant? Shall we say, at two services:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus: at the slaughtering he declared that it was for those who can eat, and at the sprinkling he declared that it was for those who cannot eat');">¹⁸</span> and the reason [that it is fit] is because he intended it [for non-eate at the sprinkling, for there can be no [effective] intention of eaters at the sprinkling;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an intention with respect to the eaters expressed at the sprinkling is of no account.');">¹⁹</span> hence [if it were] at one service, e.g. at the slaughtering, where an intention with reference to eaters is effective, it would be disqualified, but we have an established law that if some are eaters it is not disqualified?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since even if only one desired to eat of it the whole animal must be killed, v. infra 61a.');">²⁰</span>