Pesachim

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,1 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?2 — 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 expressed3 [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];4 while the Rabbis hold, We require his mouth and his heart [to be] the same.5 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. 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. (Ritual slaughtering — shechitah — consists of cutting across the two organs of the throat, viz, the windpipe and the gullet.) 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. Therefore if he first mentions the circumcised, it is fit; while if he first mentions the uncircumcised, it is unfit. 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 enter this house,’ but he said, ‘that [house],’ or, ‘[I vow] that I will not benefit from this [person],’ but he said ‘from that [person],’ he has said nothing,6 unless his mouth and his heart are alike?7 — 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.8 [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 Rabbis9 are consistent with their view, for they maintain, You cannot render [a sacrifice] piggul at half of that which makes it permitted.10 MISHNAH. HE WHO SLAUGHTERS THE PASSOVER OFFERING WITH LEAVEN [IN HIS POSSESSION]11 VIOLATES A NEGATIVE COMMAND.12 R. JUDAH SAID: [ALSO] THE [EVENING] TAMID TOO.13 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.14 BUT [FOR] ALL OTHER SACRIFICES,15 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;16 BUT [FOR] ALL OTHER SACRIFICES [SLAUGHTERED ON THE FESTIVAL WITH LEAVEN], WHETHER FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE OR FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, HE IS LIABLE,17 EXCEPT [IN THE CASE OR] A SIN-OFFERING WHICH HE SLAUGHTERED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE.18 GEMARA. 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] circumcised. 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 fit. 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. blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread (Ex. XXXIV, 25). 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. Passover offering, but fit if sacrificed as a peace-offering.