Pesachim 59b (נט:) — the Talmud in English

Leviticus 14

“And the priest shall offer up the burnt offering”.

This indicates that it effects atonement even in a case

where he had already offered up

the burnt offering before the sin offering.

For if the verse’s intention were that he should now offer the burnt offering after the sin offering, it should have written: “And he shall offer up the burnt offering,” in the future tense. But “and he offered up” indicates the past tense—that he had already offered it before the sin offering.

Rav Shemen bar Abba said to Rav Pappa: According to you, who say

“he offers it up and leaves it overnight on top of the altar,”

there is a difficulty:

Is it conceivable that

we should stand by and perform an act that will cause the priests who encounter it to stumble!?

For if he offers it up onto the altar, there is concern that the priests may exchange limbs that are forbidden to be burned with limbs that are permitted to be burned.

For sacrifices that were slaughtered and whose blood was sprinkled before the afternoon daily offering may be burned throughout the entire night [for the reason stated below]. Consequently, they may err regarding what he has now placed on the altar,

thinking that it is of today

[They will think that the limbs placed there in order to leave them overnight until the next day are limbs of a sacrifice whose time for offering and burning is today], and

come to burn them

[They will mistakenly burn them], thereby transgressing the positive commandment of completion!?

And we answered:

He said to him:

There is no concern that they will mistakenly think that these are limbs permitted to be burned tonight, because

priests are vigilant.

The priest who places them on top of the altar will inform the other priests that these limbs are forbidden to be burned tonight, and the other priests will take care not to transgress the prohibition.

And we challenge this:

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana

and some say, Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa:

What benefit is there in offering them up and leaving them overnight on top of the altar?

But how long

[For as long as]

the sacrificial portions are not burned

of the sin offering,

the priests cannot eat

the

meat

of the sin offering. And the priests’ eating delays the owners’ atonement. If so, the owners still lack atonement and cannot eat sacred food!

The Gemara brings a proof that it is forbidden for the priests to eat the meat before the sacrificial portions have been burned:

As it is taught in a beraita: Could it be that the priests are permitted

to eat

the breast and thigh

[which are their portion of the peace offering]

before the burning of the sacrificial portions?

The verse states

[Leviticus 7]

“And the priest shall burn the fat on the altar,” and afterward

[it states] [there]

“And the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons’.”

Since the priests are not yet permitted to eat, the owners have not yet achieved atonement. For:

And how long

[For as long as]

the priests have not eaten the meat—

the owners have not achieved atonement.

As it is taught in a beraita:

It is written in the passage concerning the inauguration [Exodus 29]:

“And they shall eat those things with which atonement was effected for them.”

The verse teaches

that the priests eat

the meat of the sacrifice

and

by means of this

the owners achieve atonement!

It follows that atonement depends also on the priests’ eating, and it is not enough merely to slaughter the sacrifice and sprinkle its blood.

If so, there is a difficulty: if they merely slaughter and sprinkle the blood and leave the sacrificial portions overnight, the owners still lack atonement and are forbidden to eat sacred food. For the priests must also eat the meat, and the priests cannot eat it because the sacrificial portions have not been burned.

If so, we have accomplished nothing by slaughtering the sacrifice after the afternoon daily offering in order to permit the owners to eat sacred food!

And we answer:

He said to him: Since it is impossible

to burn the sacrificial portions today because of the positive commandment of “completion,”

they treated them

[the Sages regarded the sacrificial portions]

as though they had become impure or had been lost.

And when the sacrificial portions have become impure or have been lost, the meat is immediately permitted for the priests to eat. For the burning delays the priests from eating only as long as it is possible to burn the sacrificial portions.

Therefore, the priests eat the meat today, and the owners achieve atonement through their eating, and they are permitted to eat sacred food.

The Gemara brings a proof that when the sacrificial portions have become impure or have been lost, the absence of their burning does not prevent the priests from eating their portion:

As it is taught in a beraita:

Since we have learned that the burning prevents the priests from eating,

could it be that if the sacrificial portions became impure or were lost, the priests would not be entitled to the breast and thigh?

The verse states

[Leviticus 7]

“And the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons’”—

in any event!

This includes even a case in which the sacrificial portions became impure or were lost.

Rav Kahana raised

a difficulty, as there is apparently a contradiction between two verses:

It is written

in one verse [Exodus 23]:

“You shall not leave the fat of My Festival offering overnight until morning.”

This indicates that only

“until morning one may not leave it overnight,”

the fat of the Festival offering.

But the entire night—

one may leave it overnight

below, in the Temple courtyard, and throughout the entire night one may place the fats [the sacrificial portions] on the altar and burn them, since they do not become disqualified as long as dawn has not risen.

This verse demonstrates that the entire night is suitable for burning, even though the limbs of the afternoon daily offering had already been burned beforehand.

And it is written

in another verse [Leviticus 6]:

“And he shall burn upon it the fats of the peace offerings.”

And we derive:

“Upon it”

[upon the morning daily burnt offering]

“complete all the sacrifices,”

and not upon the afternoon daily offering.

This verse proves that it is forbidden to burn sacrifices after the afternoon daily offering, and this contradicts what we learned from the first verse, that the entire night is suitable for burning!

And we answer:

He,

Rav Kahana,

raised

this difficulty.

And he

himself

resolved

it:

What we said—that it is permitted to burn sacrifices after the afternoon daily offering—refers to a case

where the sacrificial portions remained

from a sacrifice that had been slaughtered and whose blood had been sprinkled before the afternoon daily offering, but they had not managed to burn them before the daily offering was burned.

The reason it is permitted is that from the moment its blood was sprinkled, the sacrificial portions were fit to be burned; and since they were fit to be burned before the afternoon daily offering was burned, it is considered as though this sacrifice had been completed upon the morning daily offering.

Rav Safra raised to Rava

two verses that apparently contradict one another.

In one verse

it is written

[Exodus 34]:

“You shall not leave overnight until morning the sacrifice of the Paschal offering.”

This indicates that only

“until morning one may not leave it overnight,”

the sacrificial portions of the Paschal offering.

But throughout the entire night one may leave it overnight,

and may place them on the altar and burn them throughout the entire night, even though the night is a Festival [the night of the fifteenth of Nisan], and the sacrificial portions of the Paschal offering are portions remaining from a sacrifice whose blood was sprinkled on a weekday [since the fourteenth of Nisan is a weekday].

It follows that the sacrificial portions of weekday sacrifices may be offered on a Festival.

But

on the other hand, in another verse,

it is written

[Numbers 28]

“The burnt offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat,”

and we exclude from it:

“But not the burnt offering of a weekday on Shabbat, and not the burnt offering of a weekday on a Festival!”

If so, why do we say that the limbs of the Paschal offering—which are limbs of a weekday sacrifice—may be offered on the night of the Festival?!

Rava said to him

in answer:

This had already been raised before him by

[This contradiction had already been raised]

Rav Abba bar Ḥiyya to Rabbi Abbahu.

And Rabbi Abbahu answered him:

Rabbi Abbahu said:

Here,

the verse that permits offering the fats of the Paschal offering on the night of a Festival is not speaking of a sacrifice offered on a weekday. Rather,

we are dealing with the fourteenth that occurs on Shabbat,

when these sacrificial portions remained from a Paschal offering sacrificed on Shabbat.

It is only for this reason that it is permitted to burn them on the night of the Festival, since

the fats of a Shabbat sacrifice may be offered on a Festival.

As we derive in Shabbat 114a from the verse “The burnt offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat”: it indicates that this Shabbat burnt offering may be offered on another Shabbat. And we explain that the reference is to the limbs of the Shabbat burnt offering that are offered on the Festival occurring on the following day.

He said

in astonishment

to him,

Rav Safra to Rava: Is it the case that

because the fats of a Shabbat sacrifice may be offered on a Festival, we should get up and say to him

[we should get up and say to him]

that this verse is written specifically regarding the fourteenth that occurs on Shabbat?!

Rava said to him:

Rava said:

Leave the verse alone.

Leave the verse—it is not we who establish the verse through this particular interpretation.

Rather,

it

the verse itself

forces and establishes itself,

as though it were forcing itself to be established through this interpretation.

For from the contradiction between the verses, it is necessarily established that the verse permitting offering on the night of a Festival is speaking specifically of the fourteenth that occurs on Shabbat!

Mishna:

The Paschal offering must be slaughtered for the sake of the Paschal offering, and its other services—the receiving of the blood, carrying the blood to the altar, and sprinkling the blood—must all be performed for the sake of the Paschal offering as well. For it is written [Exodus 12]: “And you shall say: It is a Passover sacrifice”—its slaughter must be for the sake of the Paschal offering [and the other three services are derived in Zevaḥim 7b]. And from the fact that it is written “it,” we exclude the possibility that the Paschal offering is valid unless it was slaughtered for its sake; but if it was slaughtered not for its sake [for example, if at the time of slaughter he intended to slaughter it for the sake of a peace offering], the sacrifice is disqualified and requires burning [and concerning the other three services, it is likewise derived in Zevaḥim [there] that if he performed them not for their sake, the sacrifice is disqualified]. Rashi and Tosafot wrote in several places that a sacrifice is not disqualified by thought alone, and that when the Gemara refers to “thought,” it means that he expressed the thought verbally.

A Paschal offering that one slaughtered not for its sake

[for example, at the time of slaughter he said that he was slaughtering it for the sake of a peace offering],

and received

the blood,

and carried

the blood,

and sprinkled

the blood

not for its sake

[that is, he performed one of these services not for the sake of the Paschal offering but for the sake of another sacrifice],

or

he formulated in it the intention

“for its sake and not for its sake”

[the Gemara will explain whether this means that he had both intentions during a single service—for example, at the beginning of the slaughter he intended it for its sake and at the end of the slaughter not for its sake—or during two services, for example, he received the blood for its sake and, at the time of sprinkling, intended it not for its sake],

or

he formulated in it the intention

“not for its sake and for its sake,”

in all these cases—the Paschal offering is

disqualified.

The Mishna explains:

What is meant by “for its sake and not for its sake”?

He intended

“for the sake of the Paschal offering, and

afterward intended

for the sake of a peace offering.”

What is meant by

“not for its sake and for its sake”?

He intended

“for the sake of a peace offering, and

afterward

for the sake of the Paschal offering.”

Gemara:

Rav Pappa raised a question

[the Maharshal emended the text]

Rava raised a question:

This case, which we learned in the Mishna, in which he intended both for its sake and not for its sake—is it referring to one who entertained both intentions

during one service

[for example, during the slaughter he first intended it for its sake and afterward not for its sake],

or

to one who entertained both intentions

during two services

[for example, he slaughtered it for its sake and received the blood not for its sake]?

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Meir disagreed in several places concerning the law governing one who uttered two statements that contradict one another.

According to Rabbi Yosei, both statements have force.

According to his view, when it is possible to fulfill both statements partially, one does so.

For example, if one said concerning an animal: “This is the substitute of a burnt offering, the substitute of a peace offering,” it is impossible for both statements to be fulfilled in their entirety, since they contradict one another: one animal cannot be entirely a burnt offering and entirely a peace offering.

But since it is possible to fulfill both partially—so that half of it possesses the sanctity of a burnt offering and half possesses the sanctity of a peace offering—the sanctity of both the substitute of a burnt offering and the substitute of a peace offering takes effect upon it.

Although it cannot be offered in this manner, it must be left to graze until it develops a blemish. It may then be redeemed, and with the value of half of it one purchases a burnt offering, and with the value of the other half one purchases a peace offering.

Similarly, one who slaughters a sacrifice for its sake and not for its sake has uttered intentions that can be fulfilled partially. Although it is impossible to intend that the sacrifice be entirely for its sake and entirely not for its sake, since these are contradictory notions, it is nevertheless possible to intend that the sacrifice be partially for its sake and partially not for its sake.

Consequently, it is disqualified, because even a partial intention not for its sake disqualifies a sacrifice.

And according to Rabbi Meir, only the first thing he said is always effective.

Therefore, according to him, one who says, “This is a substitute for an olah, a substitute for a shelamim”—this is a substitute for an olah.

And on this basis Rav Pappa explained the doubt:

Whether

we learned this with regard to one ritual service.

It follows that the case is one in which he entertained two contradictory intentions during a single ritual service, and nevertheless the offering is invalid; what he intended for its sake during that service is not effective to render it valid.

And

according to this, it must be said that the Mishna, which states that it is invalid when he entertains two contradictory intentions, is according to

Rabbi Yosei—

as he says that a person is also bound by the final formulation of his words [

and there is a component that was not for its sake, which renders it invalid].

For if it is Rabbi Meir—

he says that one follows the first formulation [

and according to his view, if he intended for its sake and not for its sake, he is bound by the beginning of his words, and it is entirely for its sake, which is valid].