Pesachim 125

לימא קסברי אחרים אינה לשחיטה אלא בסוף וכדרבא דאמר רבא עדיין היא מחלוקת

Shall we [then] say that the 'others' hold, Slaughtering does not count save at the end, and [this is] in accordance with Raba, who said, There is still the controversy. Therefore if he put the circumcised before the uncircumcised, it operates in respect of the circumcised,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the circumcised fall' (i.e., are counted) . - The slaughtering counts as having been performed for the circumcised.');">¹</span> but it does not operate in respect of the uncircumcised; while if he put the uncircumcised before the circumcised, it operates in respect of the uncircumcised, but it does not operate in respect of the circumcised?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a man would substitute an animal for another consecrated animal, both are holy (Lev. XXVII, 33) , the former bearing the same holiness as that of the latter, and it must be offered as the same sacrifice. Now if he declares, 'This animal be a substitute for a burnt-offering', 'This (the same) animal be a substitute for a peace-offering', R. Meir rules that it is a substitute for the first only, for only his first words are regarded. R. Jose holds that his last words too are regarded, and therefore it is a substitute for both; hence it must be redeemed, and the redemption money expended on two animals, one for a burnt-offering and another for a peace-offering. Now a problem is raised in Zeb. 30a: What if he declares, 'Half of this be a substitute for a burnt-offering, and half be a substitute for a peace-offering'; does R. Meir agree with R. Jose or not? Is R. Meir's reason in the former case because he regards the second statement as a change of mind, which is invalid, since by his first statement it has already become a burnt-offering? But that is obviously inapplicable to the case in question, hence R. Meir will agree. Or perhaps here too R. Meir holds that since the sanctity of the burnt-offering first takes possession of it, as it were, that of the peace-offering cannot operate? Abaye maintains that R. Meir does agree in this case, but Raba holds that there is still the controversy. Thereupon Raba raised an objection to Abaye from this: If a man slaughters a sacrifice with the intention of eating as much as an olive without the permitted area and as much as an olive after the permitted time, R. Judah disagrees with the Rabbis and rules as R. Meir, that only his first statement is counted, hence it is not piggul, which applies to the second only, and kareth is not incurred for eating it. For R. Judah states this as a general rule: If the intention of an illegitimate time is expressed before the intention of an illegitimate place, it is piggul, and kareth is incurred for eating it, whether these two intentions are both expressed');">²</span>

הילכך הקדים מולין לערלים מולין חיילי ערלים לא חיילי הקדים ערלים למולין ערלים חיילי מולין לא חיילי

- Said Rabbah, Not so: in truth the 'others' hold [that] slaughtering counts from beginning to end, but the case we discuss here is this: e.g. , where he mentally determined [it] for both of them, [i.e.,] both for circumcised and for uncircumcised, and he verbally expressed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'uttered with his mouth'.');">³</span> [his intention] for uncircumcised, but he had no time to say, 'for the circumcised' before the slaughtering was completed with [the expressed intention of] the uncircumcised [alone], and they differ in this: R'Meir holds [that] we do not require his mouth and his heart [to be] the same [in intention];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., we merely regard the explicit intention. Hence since he mentioned the uncircumcised only, the sacrifice is unfit.');">⁴</span> while the Rabbis hold, We require his mouth and his heart [to be] the same.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., both are regarded. Therefore the Mishnah supra ');">⁵</span>

אמר רבה לא לעולם קסברי אחרים ישנה לשחיטה מתחלה ועד סוף והכא במאי עסקינן כגון שגמר בלבו לתרווייהו בין למולין בין לערלים והוציא בפיו לערלים ולא הספיק לומר למולין עד שנגמרה שחיטה בערלים ובהא פליגי דר"מ סבר לא בעינן פיו ולבו שוים ורבנן סברי בעינן פיו ולבו שוים

Yet does R'Meir hold that we do not require his mouth and at the same service or at different services, because the first statement only is regarded. But the Rabbis maintain that his last words too count, so that if both are expressed at the same service there is a mixing of intentions, and it does not become piggul, for a sacrifice becomes piggul only when the blood has otherwise been properly sprinkled.

וקסבר ר' מאיר לא בעינן פיו ולבו שוין ורמינהו המתכוין לומר תרומה ואמר מעשר מעשר ואמר תרומה או שאיני נכנס לבית זה ואמר לזה שאיני נהנה לזה ואמר לזה לא אמר כלום עד שיהו פיו ולבו שוין

This proves that the view that the first statement only is regarded is maintained even in respect of halves, for the sacrifice is large enough to permit us to assume that each wrongful intention was expressed with respect to a different part thereof, and yet R'Judah disagrees. To this Abaye answered, Do not think that the slaughtering counts only when it is completed, so that the two intentions come together at the same moment. On the contrary, the slaughtering counts from beginning to end, and in the passage quoted he cut one organ of the animal with the intention of eating it after time, and the second organ with the intention of eating it without the permitted area, R'Meir holding that you can make an animal piggul even at one organ only.

אלא אמר אביי רישא דאמר סימן ראשון למולין וסימן שני אף לערלים דבסימן שני נמי פתיכי ביה מולין סיפא דאמר סימן ראשון לערלים סימן שני למולים דבסימן ראשון הא לא פתיכי ביה מולין

This proves that Raba, who raised this objection, holds that in the views of R'Meir and R'Judah slaughtering counts only at the end. Hence the present passage too can be explained on that basis too. Thus: he must express his intention for whom he is slaughtering the Passover sacrifice at the end of the slaughtering, and at that moment there is insufficient time to mention both, and so only the first expression is regarded, the second being entirely disregarded.

ור' מאיר לטעמיה דאמר מפגלין בחצי מתיר ורבנן לטעמייהו דאמרי אין מפגלין בחצי מתיר:

Therefore if he first mentions the circumcised, it is fit; while if he first mentions the uncircumcised, it is u his heart [to be] the same, but the following contradicts it: He who intended saying '[Let this be] terumah,' but he said 'tithe' [instead], [or, 'let this be] tithe,' and he said 'terumah,' or, '[I swear] that I will not house,' but he said, 'that [house],' or, '[I vow] that I will not benefit from this [person],' but he said 'from [person],' he has said nothing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his words are invalid.');">⁶</span> unless his mouth and his heart are alike?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is an anonymous Mishnah, and it is a general rule that such reflects R. Meir's view; Sanh. 86a.');">⁷</span> - Rather, said Abaye, The first clause means where he stated, '[I cut] the first organ for the circumcised and the second organ for the uncircumcised too,' so that at the second organ also circumcised too are included.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is fit.');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוחט את הפסח על החמץ עובר בלא תעשה ר' יהודה אומר אף התמיד רבי שמעון אומר הפסח בארבעה עשר לשמו חייב ושלא לשמו פטור ושאר כל הזבחים בין לשמן ובין שלא לשמן פטור

[But] the second clause means where he stated '[I cut] the first organ for uncircumcised, the second organ for circumcised' so that at the first organ circumcised are not included. Now R'Meir is consistent with his opinion, for he maintained, You can render [a sacrifice] piggul at half of that which makes it permitted; while the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the view of the Mishnah supra 61a.');">⁹</span> are consistent with their view, for they maintain, You cannot render [a sacrifice] piggul at half of that which makes it permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'That which makes it permitted' (the mattir) here is the slaughtering; half of that etc., is the cutting of one organ. R. Meir holds that the intention expressed at the cutting of the first organ determines the status of the sacrifice. Hence, if this intention was to eat it after time, it is piggul; while in the present case, since it was for the uncircumcised, it is disqualified. The Rabbis, however, hold that an illegitimate intention at the first organ cannot render it piggul, and in the same way an intention for uncircumcised at the first organ does not disqualify it.');">¹⁰</span>

ובמועד לשמו פטור שלא לשמו חייב ושאר כל הזבחים בין לשמן בין שלא לשמן חייב חוץ מן החטאת ששחטו שלא לשמה:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>HE WHO SLAUGHTERS THE PASSOVER OFFERING WITH LEAVEN [IN HIS POSSESSION]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before the leaven has been destroyed. The phraseology is Biblical: Thou shalt not slaughter (E.V. 'offer') the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread (Ex. XXXIV, 25) .');">¹¹</span> VIOLATES A NEGATIVE COMMAND.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. preceding note.');">¹²</span> R'JUDAH SAID: [ALSO] THE [EVENING] TAMID TOO.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he kills the evening tamid of the fourteenth before the leaven is destroyed, he violates a negative command.');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש לעולם אינו חייב עד שיהא החמץ לשוחט או לזורק

R'SIMEON SAID: [IF HE SLAUGHTERS] THE PASSOVER OFFERING [WITH LEAVEN] ON THE FOURTEENTH FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE, HE IS LIABLE [TO PUNISHMENT]; [IF] FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, HE IS EXEMPT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the former case the sacrifice is fit, hence the shechitah is duly regarded as shechitah. But in the latter the sacrifice is unfit; hence R. Simeon does not regard the shechitah as shechitah, and the verse quoted on p. 317, n. 6. does not apply to it.');">¹⁴</span> BUT [FOR] ALL OTHER SACRIFICES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Offered on Passover eve with leaven in his possession.');">¹⁵</span> WHETHER SLAUGHTERED FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE OR FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, HE IS EXEMPT. [BUT IF HE SLAUGHTERS THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE WITH LEAVEN] ON THE FESTIVAL, IF FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE, HE IS EXEMPT; IF FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, HE IS LIABLE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a Passover offering killed at a time other than its own, viz., the fourteenth, is disqualified if sacrificed as a Passover offering, but fit if sacrificed as a peace-offering.');">¹⁶</span> BUT [FOR] ALL OTHER SACRIFICES [SLAUGHTERED ON THE FESTIVAL WITH LEAVEN], WHETHER FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE OR FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, HE IS LIABLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they are fit, v. Zeb. 2a.');">¹⁷</span> EXCEPT [IN THE CASE OR] A SIN-OFFERING WHICH HE SLAUGHTERED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is disqualified, ibid.');">¹⁸</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Simeon B'Lakish said: He is never liable unless there is leaven belonging to him who slaughters or to him who sprinkles [the blood]