Pesachim 63a (סג.) — the Talmud in English

Shall we say that Aḥerim hold: The designation of slaughter applies only at the end?

. For Abaye and Rava disagreed as to when the designation of slaughter takes effect. And according to Abaye, who holds that the designation of slaughter applies from the beginning through the end, it is not understood why, if he mentioned uncircumcised before circumcised, the offering is disqualified. After all, even once he has begun slaughtering for the sake of the uncircumcised, he can continue slaughtering also for the sake of the circumcised.

But according to Rava, who holds that the designation of slaughter applies only at the end, the thoughts concerning the circumcised and uncircumcised can likewise take effect only at the end. The beraita is therefore understandable: Since there is only an extremely brief moment—“something”—at the end of the slaughter, there is insufficient time for two thoughts to take effect at that same moment. Only the first thought, that which he had concerning the uncircumcised, can take effect, as one seizes the first expression.

Therefore, if he mentioned the uncircumcised before the circumcised, the offering is disqualified.

Still, this is difficult: If we hold that when one says, “This animal is, at midday [at a later time], an exchange for an olah, an exchange for a shelamim,” Rabbi Meir concedes that both designations take effect, in accordance with Abaye’s above-mentioned view—that when he said “an exchange for an olah,” nothing had yet taken effect until midday, and when the designations took effect he had already finished saying his words, so both took effect simultaneously—

? then also with regard to one who slaughters for the uncircumcised and the circumcised, since we hold that the designation of slaughter applies only at the end, when he said “for the uncircumcised and for the circumcised,” nothing took effect until he completed the slaughter. In this case too, Rabbi Meir should concede that we do not say that one seizes the first expression! [And the question returns: Why, if he mentioned the uncircumcised before the circumcised, is the offering disqualified?]

And to answer this, we say:

and

the beraita must necessarily hold

in accordance with Rava.

For Rava said:

when one says, “This is, at midday, an exchange for an olah, an exchange for a shelamim,”

it is still a dispute.

. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei also disagree in this case. According to Rabbi Meir, one seizes the first expression even when his words do not take effect immediately, but only after some time.

Therefore,

also with regard to the circumcised and uncircumcised, one seizes the first expression, even though his words do not take effect immediately, but only at the end of the slaughter.

Since at the end of the slaughter there is an extremely brief moment—“something”—it is impossible for two thoughts to take effect there one after the other. Therefore, if

he mentioned the circumcised before the uncircumcised—

the circumcised take effect.

For the thought to feed the circumcised takes effect.

But the thought concerning

the uncircumcised does not take effect.

But if

he mentioned the uncircumcised before the circumcised—

the uncircumcised take effect.

The circumcised do not take effect.

For we say that one seizes the first expression, and the offering is disqualified.

We have learned two things from the words of the beraita: First, the designation of slaughter applies only at the end. Second, even when one makes a statement that does not take effect now but only later, Rabbi Meir says that one seizes the first expression. This is in accordance with Rava.

! And from here there is a difficulty against Abaye!

Rabba said

to explain Abaye’s position:

No.

This is not proof for Rava, that the designation of slaughter applies only at the end.

Rather, Aḥerim always hold that the designation of slaughter applies from the beginning through the end,

in accordance with Abaye.

And regarding what we asked according to Abaye—why, if he mentioned the uncircumcised before the circumcised, is the offering disqualified?—this can be answered:

And with what are we dealing here?

With which case does the latter clause of the beraita, “he mentioned the uncircumcised before the circumcised,” deal?

For example, he had resolved in his heart concerning both [

both of them ]—

both the circumcised and the uncircumcised. But he expressed with his mouth “for the uncircumcised,” and did not manage to say “for the circumcised” before the slaughter was completed with the uncircumcised.

. With regard to consecrated offerings, wherever thought is mentioned, the reference is not to thought alone, but to speech. Therefore, one who slaughters the Paschal offering for the uncircumcised does not disqualify it through thought alone; likewise, the designation for the circumcised does not take effect through thought alone. If so, since he said only “for the uncircumcised,” seemingly the offering should be disqualified.

And in this they disagree:

]. Aḥerim [Rabbi Meir] and the Sages [as indicated by the wording of the beraita, which implies that Rabbi Meir came to disagree with the words of the Sages] disagree in this matter.

. For Rabbi Meir holds that we do not require his mouth and his heart to be in agreement.

It is not necessary for a person’s mouth to correspond to his thought. Therefore, since he said “for the uncircumcised,” the offering is disqualified, even though in his heart he had intended only some of the uncircumcised.

And the Sages hold that we require [

we require ]

his mouth and his heart to be in agreement.

Here, since he intended only some of the uncircumcised, even though he said only “for the uncircumcised,” his speech cannot take effect, because it does not correspond to his thought.

And we ask:

and

if

Rabbi Meir holds that

he

does not require his mouth and his heart to be in agreement?!

But we raise a contradiction: [

from the following Mishna against the above beraita, to show that they contradict one another ].

We learned in tractate Terumot [chapter 3, Mishna 1]:

One who intends to say

that produce should be

teruma, but said “maaser,”

or who intended to say

“maaser,” but said “teruma.”

Or

who intended to say—konam [a vow]

“I will not enter this house,”

but made an error in his speech and

said “this one,”

referring to another house.

And likewise, if he intended to say konam,

“I will not derive benefit from

a person

this,” but said “this one,”

referring to another person.

He has said nothing—

until his mouth and his heart are in agreement.

But an unattributed Mishna is Rabbi Meir, and we learned that his mouth and his heart must be in agreement!

Rather, Abaye said

another answer to explain the words of the beraita in accordance with his position. [There is no need to establish that the beraita holds like Rava, that the designation of slaughter applies only at the end.]

The first clause

of the beraita, which states that if he mentioned the circumcised before the uncircumcised the offering is valid, is referring to the following case:

One who slaughters an animal must sever the majority of both of the signs [the trachea and esophagus] in its neck. And for example,

he said

when he slaughtered

the first sign—“for the circumcised.”

And

when he slaughtered

the second sign,

he added to his first thought and said, “also for the uncircumcised.”

It follows that when he slaughtered the first sign, he slaughtered validly for the sake of the circumcised. And also at the time of slaughtering

the second sign,

even though he also intended the uncircumcised, nevertheless

the circumcised were also mixed into it,

meaning that the circumcised were also included in it, and one who slaughters for the uncircumcised and the circumcised produces a valid offering.

Whereas

the latter clause,

which states that if he mentioned the uncircumcised before the circumcised the offering is disqualified, refers to the following case:

He said

when he slaughtered

the first sign—“for the uncircumcised,”

and when he slaughtered

the second sign,

he said—

“for the circumcised.”

It follows

that with regard to

the slaughter of

the first sign, the circumcised were not mixed into it.

They were not included in his intention to slaughter also for the circumcised; his intention was only for the uncircumcised.

And although he did not have the thought concerning the uncircumcised throughout the entire slaughter, but only during the slaughter of one sign, which is half of the slaughter that renders the offering permitted, Rabbi Meir holds that one sign, being part of the slaughter, is considered like a complete slaughter, and the thought concerning the uncircumcised disqualifies it.

And Rabbi Meir follows his own reasoning,

according to his position,

as he said:

“One can effect piggul with half of that which renders the offering permitted.”

If he had a thought of piggul during half of one of the sacrificial rites, the designation of piggul takes effect upon the offering. Therefore, here too, with regard to the thought concerning the uncircumcised during the slaughter of one sign, the disqualification associated with the uncircumcised takes effect upon the offering.

And the Sages,

who disagree with Rabbi Meir and deem valid an offering performed for the uncircumcised and the circumcised,

follow their own reasoning [

according to their position ],

as they say: “One cannot effect piggul with half of that which renders the offering permitted.”

Therefore, one who slaughters one sign, which is half of that which renders the offering permitted, with the thought concerning the uncircumcised does not disqualify it.

Mishna:

It is written in Exodus [chapter 34]: “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice over leaven.”

. And its meaning is: You shall not slaughter My sacrifice while leaven still exists [based on Rashi there]. However, the Torah does not explicitly explain with regard to which sacrifice this prohibition is stated.

The tannaim in our Mishna disagree as to which sacrifice the verse is referring.

According to the Sages:

One who slaughters the Paschal offering over leaven—

violates this prohibition.

This is because, in their view, the verse “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice over leaven” refers only to the Paschal offering.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the daily offering

of the afternoon of the eve of Passover: One who slaughtered it over leaven violates this prohibition. The Gemara derives the reason.

Rabbi Shimon says:

One who slaughters other offerings as well during the time when leaven is prohibited violates this prohibition. However, there is a distinction between the Paschal offering and other offerings, and there is likewise a distinction between one who slaughters on the fourteenth of Nisan and one who slaughters during the days of the Passover Festival—

The Paschal offering

that one slaughtered

on the fourteenth,

if he slaughtered it

for its sake,

the offering is valid. Therefore, if he slaughtered it over leaven, he is

liable.

But

if he slaughtered it

not for its sake,

the offering is disqualified, as we learned at the beginning of tractate Zevaḥim: “All offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are valid, but they do not fulfill the owners’ obligation, except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering.”

Therefore, if he slaughtered it over leaven, he is

exempt,

because this is an unsuitable slaughter, and an unsuitable slaughter is not considered slaughter [since the verse “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice over leaven” refers to one who performs a valid slaughter].

And

as for

all the other offerings

that one slaughtered on the fourteenth over leaven,

whether for their sake or not for their sake,

even though they are valid—

he is exempt.

. And this is for the reason explained in the Gemara: During the time of the slaughter of the Paschal offering [on the fourteenth of Nisan], Rabbi Shimon holds that one who slaughters other offerings over leaven is not liable.

And during the Festival,

during Passover:

The Paschal offering that one slaughtered

for its sake

is disqualified, since the time for the Paschal offering is on the fourteenth. Therefore, if he slaughtered it over leaven, he is

exempt,

because it is an unsuitable slaughter.

But

if he slaughtered it

not for its sake,

but rather for the sake of a shelamim offering, it is valid, as we maintain in Zevaḥim 7b that a Paschal offering during the rest of the year is a shelamim offering and has all the laws of a shelamim. Therefore, if he slaughtered it over leaven during the Festival, when one violates the prohibitions “it shall not be seen” and “it shall not be found” with regard to leaven—

he is liable

also on account of “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice over leaven,” because this is a suitable slaughter.

And

as for

all the other offerings

that one slaughtered during the Festival over leaven,

whether

he slaughtered them

for their sake or not for their sake—

he is liable.

For they are valid, and this is a suitable slaughter.

For specifically at a time when the Paschal offering is not being offered, Rabbi Shimon holds that the prohibition “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice over leaven” applies to other offerings.

Except for a sin offering that one slaughtered not for its sake,

which is disqualified, as we learned at the beginning of Zevaḥim. Therefore, if he slaughtered it over leaven, he is exempt, because it is an unsuitable slaughter.

Gemara:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

Although the Torah writes without qualification, “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice over leaven,” and does not specify with regard to whose leaven the verse is speaking,

nevertheless,

he is never liable

if the leaven belonged to a stranger who was not one of the members of the group. Even if the leaven was in the Temple courtyard, and those slaughtering their Paschal offerings saw it, and they were warned not to slaughter upon seeing it,

until the leaven

belonged

to the one performing the slaughter.

For the meaning of the verse “You shall not slaughter over leaven” is that it refers to the leaven of the one performing the slaughter,

or

the leaven belonged

to the one who sprinkles the blood.

. For it is written, “You shall not slaughter over leaven the blood of My sacrifice,” and from the word “blood” we derive that the one who sprinkles the blood is also included.