Pesachim 121

וישנו לאחר מיתה וישנו בצבור כביחיד תאמר בשינוי בעלים דאין פסולו בגופו ואינו בארבע עבודות ואינו לאחר מיתה ואינו בצבור כביחיד

and it is [operative] after death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the owner of the sacrifice died, his son must bring it, and if the latter slaughters it for a different purpose it is disqualified.');">¹</span> and it is [operative] in the case of the community as in the case of an individual;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A public sacrifice, just like a private sacrifice, is disqualified if offered for another purpose.');">²</span> will you say [the same] of a change of owner, where the disqualification is not intrinsic, and it not [operative] in respect of the four services,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of sacrifices other than the Passover a change of owner is a disqualification only when it is expressed in connection with the sprinkling of the blood, i.e., he declares that he will sprinkle the blood on behalf of another person.');">³</span>

ואף על גב דתרתי לאו דוקא תרתי מיהא דוקא דמאי שנא שינוי בעלים דלא הוי פסולו בגופו דפסולו מחשבה בעלמא היא שינוי קודש נמי פסולו מחשבה בעלמא היא

and it is not [operative] after death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When its owner dies the sacrifice loses his name, and therefore even if it is offered in another man's name it is fit.');">⁴</span> and it is not [operative] in the case of the community as in the case of an individual? And though two [of these distinctions] are not exact,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are not true distinctions, as shown anon.');">⁵</span>

ותו הא דאמר שינוי בעלים אינו לאחר מיתה ולרב פנחס ברי' דרב אמי דאמר יש שינוי בעלים לאחר מיתה מאי איכא למימר תרתי מיהת דוקא נינהו

two nevertheless are exact. For how is a change of owners different, that [you say] its disqualification is not intrinsic: because its disqualification is merely [one of] intention? Then with a change of sanctity too, its disqualification is merely one of intention.

אלא אמר רבא פסח ששחטו בשאר ימות השנה בשינוי בעלים נעשה כמי שאין לו בעלים בזמנו ופסול:

Again, as to what he says. A change of owners is not [operative as a disqualification] after death, then according to R'Phineas the son of R'Ammi who maintained, There is [a disqualification in] a change of owner after death, what is there to be said? Two [of these distinctions] are nevertheless exact! Rather, said Raba: A Paschal lamb which he slaughtered during the rest of the year with a change of owners is regarded as though it had no owners in its proper time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as though it were slaughtered on Passover eve as a Passover sacrifice, but for no persons in particular.');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שחטו שלא לאוכליו ושלא למנויו לערלים ולטמאים פסול לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו למנויו ושלא למנויו למולים ולערלים לטמאים ולטהורים כשר

and it is disqualified. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF HE KILLED IT FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT EAT IT OR FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED FOR IT, FOR UNCIRCUMCISED PERSONS OR FOR UNCLEAN PERSONS, IT IS UNFIT. [IF HE KILLED IT] FOR THOSE WHO ARE TO EAT IT AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT TO EAT IT, FOR THOSE WHO ARE REGISTERED FOR IT AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED FOR IT, FOR CIRCUMCISED AND FOR UNCIRCUMCISED, FOR UNCLEAN AND FOR CLEAN PERSONS, IT IS FIT.

שחטו קודם חצות פסול משום שנא' (שמות יב, ו) בין הערבים שחטו קודם לתמיד כשר ובלבד שיהא אחר ממרס בדמו עד שיזרק התמיד ואם נזרק כשר:

IF HE KILLED IT BEFORE MIDDAY, IT IS DISQUALIFIED, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, [AND THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY. SHALL KILL IT] AT DUSK.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 6; lit., 'between the evenings'.');">⁷</span> IF HE KILLED IT BEFORE THE [EVENING] TAMID, IT IS FIT, PROVIDING THAT ONE SHALL STIR ITS BLOOD UNTIL [THAT OF] THE TAMID IS SPRINKLED;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prevent it from congealing.');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר כיצד שלא לאוכליו לשום חולה או לשום זקן כיצד שלא למנויו נמנו עליו חבורה זו ושחטו לשם חבורה אחרת

YET IF IT WAS SPRINKLED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the blood of the tamid.');">⁹</span> IT IS FIT. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: How is 'for those who cannot eat it' meant?

מנהני מילי דת"ר (שמות יב, ד) במכסת מלמד שאין הפסח נשחט אלא למנויו

[If it was killed] in the name of an invalid or an old man. How is 'for those who were not registered for it' meant? If one company registered for it and he killed it in the name of a different company.

יכול שחטו שלא למנויו יהא כעובר על המצוה וכשר ת"ל במכסת תכוסו הכתוב שנה עליו לעכב

How do we know this? Because our Rabbis taught, [Then shall he and his neighbour next unto him take one] according to the number of [be-miksath] [the souls]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 4.');">¹⁰</span> this teaches that the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered save for those who are registered [numbered] for it.

ר' אומר לשון סורסי הוא כאדם שאומר לחבירו כוס לי טלה זה

You might think that if he slaughtered it for those who were not registered for it, he should be as one who violates the precept, yet it is fit. Therefore it stated, 'according to the number of [be-miksath] [the souls]. ye shall make your count [takosu]': the Writ reiterated it, to teach that it is indispensable.

אשכחן שלא למנויו שלא לאוכליו מנא לן אמר קרא (שמות יב, ד) איש לפי אכלו תכוסו איתקש אוכלין למנויין

Rabbi said, This is a Syriac expression, as a man who says to his neighbour, 'Kill [kos] me this lamb.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus Rabbi connects the word with slaughter. But he also admits its Hebrew connotation of counting, and he thus points out that an intention for those who cannot eat it or who are not registered for it disqualifies the sacrifice only when it is expressed at the killing, but not when it is expressed at one of the other services (Tosaf.) .');">¹¹</span> We have thus found [it disqualified if killed] for those who are not registered for it; how do we know [the same of] those who cannot eat it? Scripture saith, according to every man's eating ye shall make your count,' [thus] eaters are assimilated to registered [persons].