Pesachim 120

אלא לאו בעבודה אחת ומדסיפא בעבודה אחת רישא נמי בעבודה אחת

Hence it surely refers [also] to one service,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., also to one service.');">¹</span> and since the second clause refers [also] to one service, the firs clause too refers [also] to one service! - What argument is this: the one is according to its nature, while the other is according to its nature: the second clause refers [also] to one service,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This will not have quite the same meaning as the same phrase used before. There it obviously meant that it treats of one service only. Here however the meaning is this: even in the case of one service the sacrifice is fit, this law holding good in the case of both one service or two services. Thus, if this intention, viz., that he was killing it for eaters and non-eaters, was expressed at the slaughtering, the sacrifice is fit, because eaters were included. While it may also refer to two services, as explained on p. 301, n. 7.');">²</span>

מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא סיפא בעבודה אחת ורישא או בעבודה אחת או בשתי עבודות

while the first clause refers either to one service or to two services.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 301. n. 6.');">³</span> The scholars asked: What is the law of a Passover sacrifice which he killed at any other time of the year for its own purpose and for another purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if a man dedicated a lamb for the Passover sacrifice a considerable time beforehand. Now it is stated infra ');">⁴</span>

איבעיא להו פסח ששחטו בשאר ימות השנה לשמו ושלא לשמו מהו מי אתי שלא לשמו ומפיק ליה מידי לשמו ומכשיר ליה או לא

Does the other purpose come and nullify<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'exclude from'.');">⁵</span> its own purpose, and [thus] make it fit, or not? - When R'Dimi came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon');">⁶</span>

כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמריתא לשמעתא קמיה דר' ירמיה הואיל ולשמו מכשירו בזמנו ושלא לשמו מכשירו שלא בזמנו מה לשמו המכשירו בזמנו אין מוציאו מידי שלא לשמו אף שלא לשמו המכשירו שלא בזמנו אין מוציאו מידי לשמו ופסול

he said, I stated this argument before R'Jeremiah: Since [slaughtering it] for its own purpose makes it fit at its own time, while [slaughtering it] for another purpose makes it fit at a different time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not in its own time'.');">⁷</span> then just as [the slaughtering] for its own purpose, which makes it fit at its own time, does not save<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'draw out'.');">⁸</span>

ואמר לי לא אם אמרת בשלא לשמו שכן נוהג בכל הזבחים תאמר בלשמו שכן אינו נוהג בכל הזבחים אלא בפסח בלבד

it from [the disqualifying effect of] another purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if it is killed both for its purpose and for another purpose, it is unfit.');">⁹</span> so also [the slaughtering] for another purpose, which makes it fit at a different time, does not save it [from the disqualifying effect] of its own purpose, and it is unfit.

מאי הוי עלה אמר רבא פסח ששחטו בשאר ימות השנה לשמו ושלא לשמו כשר דהא סתמו לשמו קאי ואפילו הכי כי שחיט ליה שלא לשמו כשר

Whereupon he said to me, It is not so: If you say thus in respect to another purpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it disqualifies the Passover sacrifice even if it is also killed for its own purposes.');">¹⁰</span> that is because it operates in the case of all sacrifices;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All sacrifices, if slaughtered for a purpose other than their own, are disqualified, either wholly, viz., in the case of a sin-offering and the Passover');">¹¹</span>

אלמא אתי שלא לשמו ומפיק ליה מידי לשמו כי שחיט נמי לשמו ושלא לשמו אתי שלא לשמו ומפיק ליה מידי לשמו

will you say [the same where it is slaughtered] for its own purpose, seeing that it does not operate [as a cause of disqualification] in the case of all [other] sacrifices but only in the case of the Passo sacrifice alone? What is [our decision] thereon? - Said Raba, A Passover sacrifice which he slaughtered at any other time of the year for its own purpose and for another purpose is fit.

א"ל רב אדא בר אהבה לרבא דילמא שאני היכא דאמר מהיכא דלא אמר דהא לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו כשר וכל היכא דשחיט ליה שלא לאוכליו לחודיה פסול ואמאי הא סתמא לאוכליו קאי אלא שאני היכא דאמר מהיכא דלא אמר הכי נמי שאני היכא דאמר מהיכא דלא אמר

For it tacitly stands [to be killed] for its own purpose, yet even so, when he kills it for another purpose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the eve of passover.');">¹²</span> it is fit, which proves that the other purpose comes and nullifies its own purpose.

א"ל מידי איריא בשלמא התם כמה דלא עקר ליה בשחיטה סתמיה ודאי לשמו קאי אלא הכא סתמיה לאוכליו קאי

Hence, when he slaughters it for its own purpose and for another purpose too, the other purpose comes and nullifies its own purpose. Said R'Adda B'Ahabah to Raba: Perhaps where he states it, it is different from where he does not state it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The other purpose can nullify the tacit assumption that it stands for its own purpose, but it may be unable to nullify the explicit declaration that it is slaughtered for its own purpose too.');">¹³</span>

דילמא מימשכי הני ואתי אחריני ומימני עלויה (אחריני) דתנן נמנין ומושכין את ידיהם ממנו עד שישחט

For [if he kills it] for those wh can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, it is fit, yet when he kills it for those who cannot eat it alone, i disqualified. Yet why so?

איבעיא להו פסח ששחטו בשאר ימות השנה בשינוי בעלים מהו שינוי בעלים כשינוי קודש דמי ומכשיר ליה או לא

Surely it tacitly stands for those who can eat it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that according to your argument it is the same as though he explicitly killed it for both.');">¹⁴</span> Hence [you must admit that] where he states it, it is different from where he does not state it; so here too, where he states it, it is diff from where he does not state it.

אמר רב פפא אמריתא לשמעתא קמיה דרבא הואיל ושינוי קודש פוסלו בזמנו ושינוי בעלים פוסלו בזמנו מה שינוי קודש שפוסלו בזמנו מכשירו לאחר זמנו אף שינוי בעלים שפוסלו בזמנו מכשירו לאחר זמנו

Is this all argument? he rejoined.

ואמר לי לא אם אמרת בשינוי קודש שכן פסולו בגופו וישנו בארבע עבודות

As for there, it is well: there, as long as does not [expressly] overthrow it at the slaughtering, its tacit [destiny] is certainly to be killed for its own purpose. But here, does it tacitly stand for those who are [registered] to eat it? Perhaps these will withdraw and others will come and register for it, for we learned: They may register and withdraw their hands from it [the Paschal lamb] until he kills it. The scholars asked: What is the law of a Paschal lamb which was slaughtered during the rest of the year with a change of its offering, which may then not be eaten, or in part, in the sense that they may be eaten, but their owners have not discharged their obligations and must bring another. Therefore it is logical that its disqualifying power should be so strong as to render of no avail the fact that it was slaughtered for its purpose too. owners?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal was set aside for a certain person and then slaughtered for a different person, but for its own purpose (Rashi) .');">¹⁵</span> Is a change of owner like a change of sanctity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., like slaughtering it as a different sacrifice.');">¹⁶</span> and it validates it; or not? - Said R'Papa. I stated this argument before Raba: Since a change of sanctity disqualifies it at its own time, and a change of owner disqualifies it at its own time: then just as a change of sanctity, which disqualifies it at its own time, validates it at a different time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text must be emended thus.');">¹⁷</span> so a change of owner, which disqualifies it at its own time, validates it at a different time. But he said to me, It is not so: If you say thus in the case of a change of sanctity, [that is] because its disqualification is intrinsic,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an illegitimate intention is expressed in respect to the sacrifice itself.');">¹⁸</span> and it is [operative] in respect of the four services,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah supra ');">¹⁹</span>