משנה: הַפֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ קִיבֵּל וְהִילֵּךְ וְזָרַק שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ אוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְלִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל. כֵּיצַד לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ. לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח וּלְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְלִשְׁמוֹ. לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים וּלְשֵׁם פֶּסַח׃ MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which he46The sacrifice may be slaughtered by its owner, or by a Levitic slaughterer attached to the Temple. The blood must be received in a vessel, transported to the altar, and sprinkled on the walls of the altar by a Cohen. Everybody involved in the service must have the intent of performing his duty explicitly for the Pesaḥ. If he started with the correct idea but in the act changed his mind and thought, e. g., that he is performing for the festival offering (Pesachim 6:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.4.1">Mishnah 6:6), we do not say that his prior thought is a dedication which excludes additional dedications, but the association of Pesaḥ and any other kind of sacrifice in any order disqualifies the sacrifice; it must be disposed of by burning outside the Temple district. slaughtered not for its purpose, received [the blood], transported it, or poured it, not for its purpose, or for its purpose and not for its purpose, or not for its purpose and for its purpose, is disqualified. What is “for its purpose and not for its purpose”? As Pesaḥ and as well-being offering. “Not for its purpose and for its purpose”? As well-being offering and as Pesaḥ.
הלכה: מְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְשׁוֹחְטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב. וַֽאֲמַרְתֶּ֡ם זֶֽבַח־פֶּ֨סַח ה֜וּא. לוֹמַר. אִם שְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח הֲרֵי הוּא פֶסַח. וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ פֶסַח. שְׁאָר כָּל־ מַעֲשָׂיו מְנַיִין. וַעָשִׂ֣יתָ [פֶּ֔סַח]. שֶׁיְּהוּ כָל־מַעֲשָׂיו לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח. מֵעתָּה אֲפִילוּ הֶקְטֵר אֵימוֹרִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר זֶֽבַח. מַה זְבִיחָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא מְעַכֶּבֶת אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה. יָֽצָאוּ הֶקְטֵר אֵימוֹרִין שֶׁאֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה. HALAKHAH: 47Zevachim.7b">Babli Zevaḥim 7b. The topic here really is Zevachim 1:1" href="/Mishnah_Zevachim.1.1">Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices which were not slaughtered specifically for the benefit of their owners are qualified except for Pesaḥ and purification offerings.” In all matters of required intent, the rules for Pesaḥ and purification offerings are equal. From where that he must slaughter it for its purpose? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: And you shall say, a Pesaḥ slaughter it is48Ex. 20:27. Quoted in this sense in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai (p. 26, line 20).; to imply that if he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ it is Pesaḥ, otherwise it is not Pesaḥ. From where the remainder of its actions? You shall make [a Pesaḥ]49Deuteronomy.16.1">Deut. 16:1. The unspecific עשה always is interpreted to include all necessary actions., that all its actions shall be for the purpose of Pesaḥ. But then also the burning of its parts50Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.? The verse says, slaughter But then also the burning of its parts50Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.? The verse says, slaughter51זבח indicates slaughter in preparation of a meal; often “sacrifice of which at least a part is consumed as sanctum”; whereas שחט (سحط) specifically means “to cut the throat”.. Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation52Since it is spelled out that the blood is it which atones for the soul(Leviticus.17.11">Lev. 17:11), if anything goes wrong in any action necessary up to the pouring of the blood on the altar’s wall the sacrifice is invalid, but nothing that happens afterwards can invalidate the offering. If the parts to be burned become impure, they have to be burned outside the Temple district but the sacrifice remains valid., this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.
חַטָּאת מְנַיִין. וְשׁחַ֤ט אֹתָהּ֙ לְחַטָּ֔את. וּשְׁאָר כָּל־מַעֲשָׂיו מְנַיִין. וְעָשָׂ֤ה אֶת־הָֽאֶחָ֣ד חַטָּ֔את. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ הֶקְטֵר אֵימוֹרִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְשָׁחַ֤ט. מַה שְׁחִיטָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא מְעַכֶּבֶת אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה. יָֽצָאוּ הֶקְטֵר אֵימוֹרִין שֶׁאֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה. From where for purification offerings? He shall slaughter it as purification offering53Leviticus.4.33">Lev. 4:33.. From where the remainder of its actions? [He]shall make49Deuteronomy.16.1">Deut. 16:1. The unspecific עשה always is interpreted to include all necessary actions. one as purification offering54There is no verse exactly as quoted in the text. The reference seems to be to Leviticus.16.30">Lev.16:30, the Cohen shall bring one as purification offering.. But then also the burning of its parts50Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.? The verse says, he shall slaughter. Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation, this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.
חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם בְּעָלִים מְנַיִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וְעָשָׂ֤ה הַכֹּהֵן֙ אֶת־הַ֣חַטָּ֔את וְכִפֶּ֥ר עַל־הַמִּטַּהֵ֖ר מִטּוּמְאָתוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ הֶקְטֵר אֵימוֹרִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכִפֵּר. מַה זְרִיקָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא מְעַכֶּבֶת אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה. יָֽצָאוּ הֶקְטֵר אֵימוֹרִין שֶׁאֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה. From where that a purification sacrifice must be for the name of its owner55All Temple personnel dealing with the sacrifice have to know the name of the owner, and the purpose of the sacrifice, and have to intend to help his expiation.? Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Cohen shall make the purification offering and expiate for the one who purifies himself from his impurity56Leviticus.14.19">Lev. 14:19. Zevachim.8a">Babli Zevaḥim 8a in the name of Rava, a contemporary of R. Jeremiah.
From here through Chapter 7 there exists a series of Genizah fragments from the Kaufmann collection in Budapest, published by S. Loewinger in the Hebrew part of the Alexander Marx Jubilee Volumes (New York 1950), indicated here by K.. Rebbi Yose said to him, but then also the burning of its parts50Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.? The verse says, and expiate. Since pouring is particular in that it invalidates expiation52Since it is spelled out that the blood is it which atones for the soul(Leviticus.17.11">Lev. 17:11), if anything goes wrong in any action necessary up to the pouring of the blood on the altar’s wall the sacrifice is invalid, but nothing that happens afterwards can invalidate the offering. If the parts to be burned become impure, they have to be burned outside the Temple district but the sacrifice remains valid., this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.
פֶּסַח לְשֵׁם בְּעָלִים מְנַיִין. וְדִין הוּא. מָה אִם הַחַטָּאת שֶׁאֵין מַחֲשֶׁבֶת עָרֵלִים וּטְמֵאִים פּוֹסְלִין בָּהּ צְרִיכָה שֶׁתְּהֵא לְשֵׁם בְּעָלִים. פֶּסַח שֶׁמַּחֲשֶׁבֶת עָרֵלִים וּטְמֵאִים פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא [צָרִיךְ] לְשֵׁם בְּעָלִים. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת שֶׂהִיא קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. תֹּאמַר בַּפֶּסַח. שֶׁהוּא קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְלֹא מִמַּחֲשָׁבָה לִמַּדְתָּ. הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָ מַחֲשָׁבָה בַפֶּסַח יוֹתֵר מִן הַחַטָּאת. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וּמֵחַטָּאתוֹ שֶׁלְמְצוֹרָע אָנוּ לְמֵידִין. וְכִי חַטָּאתוֹ שֶׁלְמְצוֹרָע לֹא לְחִידּוּשָׁהּ יָצָאת. שֶׁתָּהֵא טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים לָשֵׁם בְּעָלִים. וְדָבָר שֶׁיָּצָא לְחִידּוּשׁוֹ אֵין לְמֵידִין מִמֶּנּוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְכִי חַטָּאתוֹ שֶׁלְמְצוֹרָע מֵאֵיכָן לְמֵידְה שֶׁתְּהֵא פְסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ. לֹא מִן הָדֵין קָֽרְייָא דִכְתִיב וְשָׁחַ֤ט אֹתָהּ֙ לְחַטָּ֔את. וּכְתִיב זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַֽחַטָּ֑את. תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכָל־ הַחַטָּאוֹת. אֶלָּא מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁהִיא לְמֵידָה מִשָּׁם הִיא מְלַמֶּדֶת. From where that a Pesaḥ must be in the name of its owner? Is it not a logical argument57דִּין usually introduces an informal argument de minore ad majus.? Since a purification sacrifice, where intent for the uncircumcised or impure58Sacrifices of the uncircumcised (e. g., a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised) or an impure person (e. g., a resident outside the Land) sent through third persons are accepted in the Temple. But any uncircumcised is excluded from the Pesaḥ(Exodus.12.48">Ex.12:48) and the person who will not be pure by nightfall is excluded by the requirement that the Pesaḥ be slaughtered for the group of subscribers (Exodus.12.3-4">Ex. 12:3–4); adding the name of a person prohibited from eating sacred food will invalidate the slaughter. This argument is somewhat circular; since the argument is rejected for other reasons, this does not have to be pointed out. does not invalidate it, needs to be in the name of the owner, Pesaḥ, where intent for the uncircumcised or impure does invalidate it, is it not logical that it needs to be in the name of its owner? No. If you are saying about purification sacrifice which is most holy59It may be eaten only by male Cohanim in the Temple precinct., would you say that about Pesaḥ which is a simple sanctum60It may be eaten by every pure person within the walls of the city of the Temple.? Rebbi Yose said, did you not argue about intent? The Torah insisted about intent for Pesaḥ more than for purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: Do we infer this from the purification sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease? But is not the purification sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease separate for something new61As stated in Menachot 9:6" href="/Mishnah_Menachot.9.6">Mishnah Menaḥot 9:6, no purification offering other than that of the sufferer from skin disease needs accompanying offerings of flour and wine. The offering of flour is explicit in Leviticus.14.10">Lev. 14:10; that of wine is inferred in Sifra Mesoraˋ Pereq 2(10).? And one cannot infer from anything which is separate for something new62This is R. Ismael’s 12th hermeneutical principle: Anything which was in a group, but is taken from the group to be under a separate rule, cannot be returned to its original group unless the verse returns it explicitly. An example is the reparation sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease, whose blood is not for the altar but for the right thumb and right great toe of the owner, but which Leviticus.14.13">Lev. 14:13 declares to follow the rules of reparation sacrifices in all respects. Such a note is missing for the purification sacrifice. The Zevachim.8a">Babli, Zevaḥim 8a, accepts the argument as valid.. He told him, from where do you infer that it be invalid if not for its purpose? Not from the following verse, he shall slaughter it as purification sacrifice63Leviticus.4.33">Lev. 4:33. Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah)
Pereq 11(3)., and it is written: this is the doctrine of the purification sacrifice64Leviticus.6.18">Lev. 6:18. Zevachim.9a">Babli Zevaḥim 9a. Interpreted differently in Sifra Ṣaw Parašah 3(1).. There is one doctrine for all purification sacrifices. But from the place where it is being inferred, there it permits inferences65Since the flour offering does not accompany the purification offering of the sufferer from skin disease but his elevation offering (14:20), the attribution of the wine offering to the purification offering is an inference of the oral tradition which cannot override Leviticus.6.18">Lev. 6:18..
שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. יֵשׁ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ מֵעֲבוֹדָה לַעֲבוֹדָה וְהוּא פוֹסֵל. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. יֵשִׁ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ מֵעֲבוֹדָה לַעֲבוֹדָה. וִיהֵא כָשֵׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. מִמַּחֲשֶׁבֶת פִּיגּוּל לִימֵּד רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִילּוּ זָרַק שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פִיגּוּל. שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִן תַּרְתֵּין מִילִּין לֹא דַמְיָא מַחֲשֶׁבֶת פִּיגּוּל לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל. אִילּוּ שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לְקַבֵּל דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ כָשֵׁר. שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לְקַבֵּל דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל. אִילּוּ שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוֹרָיו שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פִיגּוּל. שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוֹרָיו שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose66The slaughterer, who most probably is not priestly, is different from the person who will pour the blood. He has the correct intention for his own action, but intends a future action to be disqualifying. Does this have an influence on the status of Pesaḥ or purification offering? Zevachim.9b-10a">Babli Zevaḥim9b/10a, Chullin.39a">Ḥulin 39a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service66aIn K: “Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no transfer of ‘not for its purpose’ from service to service.”? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul67The source is Leviticus.19.7">Lev. 19:7. A well-being offering must be eaten on the day of its offering and the next. But if it is intended to be eaten on the third day, it is piggul(“mushy”) and will not be wanted. Eating from sacrificial meat on the third day is sinful, but this has no influence on the validity of the sacrifice. But from the start intending to eat on the third day disqualifies the sacrifice and any consumption of its meat, even on the first day, is a deadly sin. This clearly is disqualification by intent for a future action by a different person. The argument is accepted in both Babli sources.. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul68It would cause disqualification but not piggul.? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification69He objects of comparing required actions in the presentation of sacrifices to piggul.. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified70Since the Cohen who receives the blood must be present at the moment of slaughter, the Cohen’s intent is what counts; a contrary intent by the slaughterer is irrelevant since it cannot precede the Cohen’s.? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified71In this sentence and the next, only the scribe’s text is reproduced and translated; the corrector’s additions and deletions are disregarded. The scribe’s text is fully confirmed by K.
The argument goes as follows: For any action up to the pouring of the blood, the wrong intent before or during the action disqualifies. But for actions required after the pouring of the blood, such as burning of the parts or eating the meat, a wrong intent before the pouring of the blood disqualifies, but a wrong intent at the moment of the action is irrelevant. Therefore, the rules of piggul cannot be used to infer rules for actions preceding the pouring of the blood.. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אֲנָא חֲמִית לְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה תְפִיס לְרִבִּי בָּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֱמוֹר לִי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לָמָּה שְׂחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל. נַעֲשֶׂה מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה כְּשׁוֹחְטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ וּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְהוּא פָסוּל. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְאִין כֵּינִי אֲפִילוּ שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו לִזְרוֹק אֶת דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו. וְיֵיעָשֶׂה מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה כְשׁוֹחְטוֹ לְאוֹכְלָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו וִיהֵא כָשֵׁר. לֵית יְכִיל. דָּמַר רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁחָטוֹ לְאוֹכְלָיו לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו כָּשֵׁר. אָתָא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁחָטוֹ לְאוֹכְלָיו לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה נְסִי[ב] חֵיילֵיהּ מִן תְּרֵין טַעֲמוֹי דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לָמָּה שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל. נַעֲשֶׂה מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְּשׁוֹחְטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ וּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְהוּא פָסוּל. לָמָּה שְׁחָטוֹ לְאוֹכְלָיו לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו כָּשֵׁר. נַעֲשֶׂה כְמִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְּשׁוֹחְטוֹ לְאוֹכְלָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו וְהוּא כָשֵׁר. Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not72For the text to make sense, this word has to be deleted with K. for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified73Pesachim 5:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.5.3.1">Mishnah 3.. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified74Obviously, here one has to read “disqualified,” even though the text is confirmed by K.. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified75The argument of R. Yose is correct; the tradition of R. Ila is incorrect, and R. Joḥanan is consistent in his opinions.. Rebbi Yose got his strength76To reject a comparison with piggul. from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.
רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָן. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל־שֶׁאִילּוּ יָבוֹא לְאוֹתָהּ הָעֲבוֹדָה וְאֵינוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב לָהּ. מְחַשֵּׁב הוּא מֵעֲבוֹדָה אֲחֶרֶת לָהּ. אִילּוּ שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פִיגּוּל. שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָסוּל. אִילּוּ שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לְקַבֵּל דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ כָשֵׁר. וּבִשְׁעַת קַבָּלָה מְחַשֵּׁב הוּא. הֲרֵי כָּל־שֶׁאִילּוּ יָבוֹא לְאוֹתָהּ הָעֲבוֹדָה וְאֵינוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב לָהּ. הוּא מְחַשֵּׁב מֵעֲבוֹדָה אֲחֶרֶת לָהּ. אִילּוּ שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוֹרָיו שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פִיגּוּל. וּבִשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה אֵינוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב. הֲרֵי כָּל־שֶׁאִילּוּ יָבֹא לְאוֹתָהּ הָעֲבוֹדָה וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב לָהּ אֵינוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב מֵעֲבוֹדָה אֲחֶרֶת לָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לָא תְתִיבֵינִי מִפִּיגּוּל עַל פְּסוּל. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִן תְּרֵין מִילִּין לֹא דַמְייָא מַחֲשֶׁבֶת פִּיגּוּל לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yudan. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan that if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking77Since sacrifices may become disqualified if a necessary action is made with the wrong intent, it is preferable that the Cohen not have any thought other than doing his duty for whom and for what it is needed., one continues thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, would that not be piggufl68? If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If one slaughtered for its purpose and to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified, since on the act of receiving he is thinking70Since the Cohen who receives the blood must be present at the moment of slaughter, the Cohen’s intent is what counts; a contrary intent by the slaughterer is irrelevant since it cannot precede the Cohen’s.. Therefore, if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If at the moment of burning he does not think, then if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action78As stated in Pesachim 5:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.5.2.6">Note 71, the intent at the moment of the action after the pouring of the blood cannot have retroactive influence on the validity of the sacrifice.. He told him, do not object to me about disqualification because of piggul, since Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification.
מַה נְפִיק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְדַּוּמָא. חִילּוּפִּין. בִּשָׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה. שְׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בִּשָׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כָּשֵׁר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ פָּסוּל. What results from the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, switching on the other days of the year. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose, on the other days of the year. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is qualified; in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is disqualified79For R. Joḥanan , Pesaḥ at any other day is a well-being sacrifice which is not disqualified by an action not done for its purpose (Zevachim 1:1" href="/Mishnah_Zevachim.1.1">Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1). For R. Simeon ben Laqish, Pesaḥ on any other day is out of order..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַל דָּא עֲלִי אָבָּא בַּר אַבָּא. דְּאִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין. מְנַיִין שֶׁהַפֶּסַח מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. וְאִם־מִן־הַצֹּ֧אן קָרְבָּנ֛וֹ לְזֶ֥בַח שְׁלָמִ֖ים. כָּל־שֶׁהוּא מִן הַצֹּאן בָּא שְׁלָמִים. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי עוֹלָה מִן הַצֹּאן. דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מִן הַצֹּאן. יָצָאת עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא בָאָה אֲפִילוּ מִן הַבָּקָר. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי אָשָׁם. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא. מִן־הַצֹּ֧אן. דָּבָר הַבָּא מִכָּל־הַצֹּאן. יָצָא אָשָׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵילִים בִּלְבַד. בְּכָל־אָתָר אַתְּ אָמַר. מִן לְרַבּוֹת. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. מִן לְמָעֵט. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. מִיעֲטוֹ. שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵילִים בִּלְבַד. הָתִיבוּן. וְהָֽכְתִיב אִם־מִן־הַצֹּ֨אן קָרְבָּנ֧וֹ מִן־הַכְּשָׂבִ֛ים א֥וֹ מִן־הָֽעִזִּ֖ים לְעוֹלָה. מֵעַתָּה מוֹתַר הַפֶּסַח בָּא עוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבּוּן׃ מְשַׁנִּין דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא לַאֲכִילָה בְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא לַאֲכִילָה. [וְאֵין מְשַׁנִּין דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא לַאֲכִילָה בְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ לַאֲכִילָה.] אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מְשַׁנִּין קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּין לְשֵׁם קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּין וְאֵין מְשַׁנִּין קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים לְשֵׁם קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַל דְּעֲלִי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה דְּאַתּוֹן אָֽמְרִין. אֵין הַפֶּסַח מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן שְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְאִם־מִן־הַצֹּ֧אן קָרְבָּנ֛וֹ לְזֶ֥בַח שְׁלָמִ֖ים. כֹּל שֶׁהוּא זֶבַח בָּא שְׁלָמִים. מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל. הֵיךְ עֲבִיד. שְׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה עַל מְנָת לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר. מִכָּל־מָקוֹם פָּסוּל הוּא. אִין תֵּימַר. מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל. פִּיגּוּל. אִין תֵּימַר. אֵינוֹ מִשְׁתַּנֶּה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת פְּסוּל. פָסול. 80This paragraph also appears in Šeqalim2:4 (ש). The readings of the editio princeps of the Babli with Yerushalmi Šeqalim are noted (שׁ); those of interest of the very shortened Munich ms. of the Babli as (M). The version of Šeqalim in the Babli is characterized by much babylonized spelling; there is an addition in Babylonian Aramaic directly taken from the parallel in the Babli Zevaḥim 8b-9a. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba81He is the father of Samuel (Zevachim.8b">Babli Zevaḥim 8b), head of the school of Nahardea in the generation of transition from Tannaim to Amoraim. He reports a Babylonian tradition. enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed82An offering in the Temple declared as Pesaḥ on any day other than the 14th of Nisan automatically is for well-being. Therefore animals dedicated as Pesaḥ but not needed on the 14th, at nightfall of the 15th automatically become dedicated well-being offerings. into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says83Leviticus.3.6">Lev. 3:6., and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]84Scribe’s text, incorrectly deleted by corrector and missing in printed editions but confiirmed by ש. K is lacunary at this point.? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering85Which never comes from large cattle.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,]84Scribe’s text, incorrectly deleted by corrector and missing in printed editions but confiirmed by ש. K is lacunary at this point. everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude86The text is difficult since it is standard rabbinic interpretation to consider prefix mem or מִן as privative, excluding certain categories (cf. Shabbat 7:1:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.7.1.11">Šabbat 7 Note 26, Shevuot 1:2:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.1.2.4">Ševuot 1:2 Note 75, Bava Mesiaˋ 4:8 Note 122, Nazir 5:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.5.2.3">Nazir5:4 Note 105). Also in the next sentence, R. Mana gives the interpretation that here מִן is privative. On the other hand, the testimony of K, M, and the scribe’s text of ש do not permit emendation. It seems that here “every where” is derogatory, meaning Babylonian. The sequence of arguments leads to a contradiction. Abba bar Abba treats מִן as inclusive, R. Abun bar Cahana as exclusive. R. Mana explains that מִן always is partitive; automatic switch to well-being offerings is possible only for sacrifices that totally correspond to the declaration צאן, i. e., both sheep and goats, male and female.? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written,87Leviticus.1.10">Lev. 1:10. and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.]88Addition by the corrector from ש, confirmed by K. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices89The latter category includes both elevation and reparation sacrifices.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed82An offering in the Temple declared as Pesaḥ on any day other than the 14th of Nisan automatically is for well-being. Therefore animals dedicated as Pesaḥ but not needed on the 14th, at nightfall of the 15th automatically become dedicated well-being offerings. into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering83Leviticus.3.6">Lev. 3:6.; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts90If the animal dedicated as Pesaḥ is used against the rules for something other than a well-being offering, do the rules of the other kind apply or is it disqualified and no rules of intent apply.? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day91This being forbidden certainly disqualifies.. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul92If the animal still is a sacrifice, now under the rules of elevation sacrifices, the intention to perform any required action out of its prescribed time-frame generates piggul, which is a deadly sin causing extirpation.. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.
לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְשֶׁם שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שֵׁם נַעֲשֶׂה כְשׁוֹחְטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בִשְׁתִיקָה וְהוּא כָשֵׁר. אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ. וְאִין כֵּינִי. אֲפִילוּ שְׂחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ לִזְרוֹק דָּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְיֵיעָשֶׂה מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה כְשׁוֹחְטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בִשְׁתִיקָה וִיהֵא כָשֵׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִיּ מָאן אָמַר בִּשְׁתִּיקָה כָשֵׁר. אוֹ נֹאמַר. בִּשְׁתִּיקָה פָּסוּל. 93This paragraph also has a parallel in Šeqalim. For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year94The slaughterer has intent both for Pesaḥ and for well-being offering. Since the Pesaḥ then is a well-being offering, it should not make any difference.? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified95Since now Pesaḥ and well-being offering mean the same, there is no contradiction. But since the names are different, it may be treated as if it was slaughtered for “what may apply”. It is presumed that slaughtering a simple sacrifice without spelling out the category is qualified.. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified96Since two different designations were used, the presumption should be that this is disqualified, as given in K.. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified97The premise of Samuel bar Abba is unproven. The question remains unanswered.? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?