Pesachim 59b — the Talmud in English

Leviticus 14

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

And it implies that he achieved atonement even in the case

that he had already offered up

the burnt offering before the sin offering.

For if the intention of the verse 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 shall offer up” implies the past tense—that he has already offered it before the sin offering.

Rav Shaman 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:

But

are we to stand and perform a matter for the priests that will lead them to a transgression!?

For if he offers it up onto the altar, there is concern lest the priests exchange limbs forbidden for burning with limbs permitted for burning.

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 that which he has now placed upon the altar,

for they will think that it belongs to today [they will think that the limbs which they 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], because they will think that they are limbs of a sacrifice slaughtered before the daily offering, which may be burned that night,

and they will come to burn them [and they will mistakenly come to burn them], and thereby violate 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 for burning that night. For

priests are vigilant.

And the priest who places them on top of the altar will inform the other priests that these limbs are forbidden for burning that night, and the other priests will take care not to transgress the prohibition.

And we raise an objection:

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana.

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

What benefit is there in placing it up and leaving it overnight on top of the altar?

But how much [for as long as]

the sacrificial portions are not burned

of the sin offering—

the priests are unable to eat

the

meat

of the sin offering. And the eating by the priests prevents the owners’ atonement. If so, the owners still lack atonement, and they cannot eat sacred meat!?

And the Gemara brings a proof that it is forbidden for the priests to eat the meat before the burning of the sacrificial portions:

As it was taught:

Could it be that the priests are permitted

to eat

the breast and the thigh [which is their portion of a peace offering]

before the burning of the sacrificial portions?

The verse says [Leviticus 7]

“And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar,” and afterward [and afterward it writes] [there]

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

And since the priests are not yet permitted to eat, the owners are not yet achieving atonement. For:

And how much [for as long as]

the priests have not eaten meat—

the owners have not achieved atonement.

As it was taught:

It is written in the section of the inauguration [Exodus 29]

“And they shall eat those things through which atonement was made for them.”

The verse teaches

that

the priests eat

the meat of the sacrifice,

and

through this, the

owners achieve atonement!

Thus, atonement also depends upon the priests’ eating, and it is not sufficient merely to slaughter and sprinkle the 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 meat. For it is also necessary that the priests eat the meat, and the priests cannot eat it since the sacrificial portions were not burned.

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

He said to him, Rava said to resolve it: It had already been posed to him [this contradiction had already been raised] by Rav Abba bar Ḥiyya to Rabbi Abbahu. And he gave him this answer, Rabbi Abbahu: Here, the verse that permits offering the fats of the Passover sacrifice on the night of the Festival does not speak of a sacrifice offered on a weekday, but rather— we are dealing with the fourteenth that occurred on Shabbat, for these sacrificial portions are portions remaining from a Passover sacrifice offered on Shabbat. It is permitted to burn them on the night of the Festival only for this reason, since the fats of Shabbat may be offered on a Festival. As we expound in Shabbat 114a from the verse “The burnt offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat”—which implies: this burnt offering of Shabbat may be offered on another Shabbat. And we explain that the intention 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 said to Rava: But because the fats of Shabbat may be offered on a Festival, shall we rise and say to him [we shall rise and say to him] that this verse is written specifically regarding the fourteenth that occurred on Shabbat!? 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 made them [the Sages regarded the sacrificial portions] as though they had become impure or had been lost. And when sacrificial portions became impure or were lost, the meat is immediately permitted to the priests to eat. For the burning prevents 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 meat. And the Gemara brings a proof that when the sacrificial portions became impure or were lost, the absence of their burning does not prevent the priests from eating their portion: As it was taught: Since we have learned that 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 the thigh? The verse says [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

an objection, for apparently there is a contradiction between two verses:

It is written in one verse [Exodus 23]

“The fat of My festival offering shall not remain overnight until morning.”

And it implies that only

until morning it shall not remain overnight

the fat of the festival sacrifice.

But the entire night—

it may remain overnight

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

This verse shows that the entire night is fit for burning, even though they had already burned the limbs of the afternoon daily offering beforehand.

And it is written in another verse [Leviticus 6]

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

And we expound:

upon it [upon the morning daily burnt offering]

complete all the sacrifices,

but not upon the afternoon daily offering.

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

And we answer:

He,

Rav Kahana,

raised it

as an objection.

And he

himself

resolves

it:

What we said, that it is permitted to burn after the afternoon daily offering, refers to

when there remained

the sacrificial portions from a sacrifice whose blood was slaughtered and sprinkled before the afternoon daily offering, but they did not have enough time to burn them before the burning of the daily offering.

The reason it is permitted is that from the time its blood was sprinkled, the sacrificial portions were fit to be burned; and since the sacrificial portions were fit for burning before the burning of the afternoon daily offering, it is considered that they completed this sacrifice upon the morning daily offering.

Rav Safra posed to Rava

two verses that apparently contradict one another.

In one verse

it is written [Exodus 34]

“It shall not remain overnight until morning, the sacrifice of the Passover festival.”

And it implies that only

until morning it shall not remain overnight

the sacrificial portions of the Passover sacrifice.

But the entire night it may remain overnight,

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

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

And

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:

and not a weekday burnt offering on Shabbat, and not a weekday burnt offering on a Festival!

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

He said to him,

Rava said to resolve it:

It had already been posed to him [this contradiction had already been raised]

by Rav Abba bar Ḥiyya to Rabbi Abbahu.

And he gave him this answer,

Rabbi Abbahu:

Here,

the verse that permits offering the fats of the Passover sacrifice on the night of the Festival does not speak of a sacrifice offered on a weekday, but rather—

we are dealing with the fourteenth that occurred on Shabbat,

for these sacrificial portions are portions remaining from a Passover sacrifice offered on Shabbat.

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

the fats of Shabbat may be offered on a Festival.

As we expound in Shabbat 114a from the verse “The burnt offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat”—which implies: this burnt offering of Shabbat may be offered on another Shabbat. And we explain that the intention 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 said to Rava: But

because the fats of Shabbat may be offered on a Festival, shall we rise and say to him [we shall rise and say to him],

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

He said to him,

Rava said to him:

Leave the verse alone.

Leave the verse—that we are not establishing the verse in this particular interpretation.

Rather,

it—

the verse itself—

presses and establishes itself,

as though it forces itself to be established in this interpretation.

For from the contradiction between the verses it is necessary that the verse permitting offering on the night of the Festival is speaking specifically of the fourteenth that occurred on Shabbat!

Mishna:

The Passover sacrifice must be slaughtered for the sake of the Passover sacrifice, and likewise its other services—receiving the blood, carrying the blood to the altar, and sprinkling the blood—must all be performed for the sake of the Passover sacrifice. For it is written [Exodus 12], “And you shall say: It is the sacrifice of the Passover”—that its slaughter be for the sake of the Passover sacrifice [and the other three services are derived in Zevaḥim 7b].

And from the fact that it is written “it,” we exclude that the Passover sacrifice is valid only if one slaughtered it for its sake; but if one slaughtered it not for its sake [for example, at the time of slaughter he intended that he was slaughtering it for the sake of a peace offering], the sacrifice is disqualified and requires burning [and likewise, regarding the other three services, it is derived in Zevaḥim [there] that if he performed them not for their sake, it is disqualified].

And Rashi and Tosafot wrote in several places that a sacrifice is not disqualified through thought alone, and what the Gemara calls “thought” means when he expressed the thought verbally.

The Passover sacrifice 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 Passover sacrifice but for the sake of another sacrifice],

or

he had in it the thought

“for its sake and not for its sake” [the Gemara will explain whether this means that he had both thoughts during one service, such as that at the beginning of the slaughter he intended it for its sake and at the end of the slaughter he intended it not for its sake, or during two services, such as that he received the blood for its sake and at the time of sprinkling intended it not for its sake],

or

he had in it the thought

“not for its sake and for its sake,”

In all these cases—the Passover sacrifice is

disqualified.

And the Mishna explains: How is it “for its sake and not for its sake”? That he intended for the sake of the Passover sacrifice, and afterward intended for the sake of a peace offering. How is “not for its sake and for its sake”?

That he intended

for the sake of a peace offering, and

afterward

for the sake of the Passover sacrifice.

Gemara:

Rav Pappa inquired [the Maharshal emended the text]:

Rava inquired

This that we learned in the Mishna, that he intended both for its sake and not for its sake—is it taught regarding one who had both thoughts

during one service [for example, at the time of slaughter he intended it for its sake and afterward not for its sake]?

Or

is it taught regarding one who had both thoughts

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

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Meir disputed in several places the law concerning one who stated two things that contradict one another.

According to Rabbi Yosei, both statements have force.

And according to his view, in a place where it is possible to fulfill both statements partially, one does so.

For example, one who said regarding an animal, “This is a substitute for a burnt offering, a substitute for a peace offering”—it is impossible for both statements to be fulfilled in their entirety, since they contradict one another, as one animal cannot be entirely a burnt offering and entirely a peace offering.

And since it is possible to fulfill both partially—so that half of it is sanctified with the sanctity of a burnt offering and half of it is sanctified with the sanctity of a peace offering—the sanctity of a substitute for a burnt offering and the sanctity of a substitute for a peace offering both take effect upon it.

And even though it cannot be offered in this manner, it is left to graze until a blemish occurs in it; then it is fit for redemption, and with the money corresponding to its half he purchases a burnt offering, and with the money corresponding to its half he purchases a peace offering.

Likewise, one who slaughters a sacrifice for its sake and not for its sake can fulfill both partially. For although it is impossible to intend that the sacrifice be entirely for its sake and entirely not for its sake, since this is a contradiction, nevertheless it is possible to intend that the sacrifice be partially for its sake and partially not for its sake.

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

.

.

Rav Pappa raised a question

[the Maharshal emended the text]

]:

during one service

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

during two services

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

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

And whereas according to Rabbi Meir, only the first thing he said ever takes effect.

Therefore, according to him, one who says, “This is a substitute for a burnt offering, a substitute for a peace-offering”—this is a substitute for a burnt offering.

And on this basis Rav Pappa explained the doubt:

Whether

we learned [the case as occurring] in one service.

And it emerges that the case concerns one who conceived two contradictory thoughts during one service, and nevertheless it is invalid; and what he conceived for its sake during that service does not avail to render it valid.

And

accordingly, it must be said that the Mishna, which said that it is invalid when he conceives two contradictory thoughts—according to

Rabbi Yosei it is—

for he says that even at the conclusion of his words a person is grasped

and there is a portion not for its sake, which is invalid.

For if [it is] Rabbi Meir—

he said: the first expression is grasped

and according to his words, if he conceived [it] for its sake and not for its sake, he is grasped by the beginning of his words, and it is entirely for its sake, which is valid.