Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 6:6

משנה: שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָיו לָעֲרֵלִים וְלַטְּמֵאִים חַייָב. לְאוֹכְלָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו לִמְנוּיָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָיו לַמּוּלִים וְלָעֲרֵלִים לַטְּהוֹרִים וְלַטְּמֵאִים פָּטוּר. שְׁחָטוֹ וְנִמְצָא בַעַל מוּם חַייָב. שְׁחָטוֹ וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה בַסֵּתֶר פָּטור. שְׁחָטוֹ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁמָּֽשְׁכוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֶת יָדָן אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּיטְמְאוּ פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשָּׁחַט בִּרְשׁוּת׃ MISHNAH: He is liable if he slaughtered it¹²⁹For a Pesaḥ on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice if acting in error. not for its eaters, or not for its subscribers, for the uncircumcised, or for the impure¹³⁰Since a Pesaḥ is disqualified if nobody is able to eat it.. He is not liable if for its eaters and not for its eaters, for its subscribers and not for its subscribers, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, for the pure and the impure¹³¹Pesachim 5:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.5.3.1">Mishnah 5:3.. If he slaughtered and it was found defective, he is liable¹³²Since the Pesaḥ may not be defective (Exodus.12.5">Ex. 12:5), it is necessary to inspect the animal before slaughter.. If he slaughtered and it was found internally tom, he is not liable¹³³Since this cannot be determined beforehand, no guilt can be incurred. The last two statements are equally valid for the Sabbath sacrifices during the year.. He is not liable if he slaughtered and it became known that the owners became disinterested in it, or they died, or they became impure, because he slaughtered with permission¹³⁴R. Joshua’s opinion in the preceding Halakhah..

הלכה: אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. לְמִי נִצְרְכָה. לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אַתְיָא דְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. כְּמַה דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. יֵשׁ בַּעֲשִׂייָתוֹ מִצְוָה. כֵּן רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. יֵשׁ בַּעֲשִׂייָתוֹ מִצְוָה. אִין תֵּימַר. שַׁנְייָא הִיא. שֶׁהוּא בַעַל מוּם. וּבַעַל מוּם אֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִתְחַלֵּף. הֲרֵי עֶגֶל הֲרֵי אֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִתְחַלֵּף וְאָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר אֲפִילוּ עֵגֲל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִין יִסְבּוֹר רִבִּי לָ‍ֽעְזָר כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַתְיָא הִיא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּעַל מוּם אֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִתְחַלֵּף. עֵגֶל דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִתְחַלֵּף. שֶׁכֵּן נִצְרָכָה (לְהִלֵּל) [לְחָלָל]. הָא בָגָלוּי חַייָב. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for whom is this¹³⁵This discusses the statement in the Mishnah that he who slaughters a defective Pesaḥ on a Sabbath is liable for a purification sacrifice. needed? For Rebbi Meïr. Does Rebbi Eleazar parallel Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish requires that his action be meritorious, does Rebbi Eleazar require that his action be meritorious¹³⁶Since a defective animal never is acceptable as a sacrifice, it cannot be dedicated as a Pesaḥ, nor can it ever be used for any purpose in the Temple.? If you are saying that there is a difference, since this one has a defect, and a defective animal is not apt to be changed¹³⁷The previous argument, while probably true, is not proven, since R. Meïr also requires that the sacrifice be apt to be changed into one of the correct type, Pesachim 6:5:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.5.4">Note 122., also a calf is not apt to be changed, and Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf¹²¹No public sacrifice is a calf. According to him, R. Meïr in interpreting R. Joshua’s position that no action resulting in a qualified sacrifice can trigger liability.. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eleazar were of Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, it would be understandable, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a defective animals is not apt to be changed, but a calf is apt to be changed, because (it was a problem for Hillel) [it is needed for the slain]¹³⁸The correct text is the sribe’s one in parentheses, confirmed by K. Since Hillel raised the question why a Pesaḥ cannot be a calf when there is a verse seemingly endorsing its use (Pesachim 6:1:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.1.9">Note 25), is using a calf as Pesaḥ not an excusable error? The text in brackets is the corrector’s, it makes little sense. (Maybe the corrector did not understand the scribe’s text, reading הַלֵּל instead of הִלֵּל). A calf is used in the rite of atonement of an unsolved murder, Deuteronomy.22.1-9">Deut. 22:1–9, but this is not a Temple ceremony.. Therefore {if it was torn} in the open, he is liable¹³⁹This refers to the next clause in the Mishnah, if there was a defect in an internal organ, the sacrifice is disqualified but the slaughterer is not liable. (Not only is he not liable, but he did not commit any sin.) But if the defect was visible, it is a case of the previous clause; there is liability..

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. הַמּוֹשֵׁךְ יָדוֹ מִפִּסְחוֹ גּוּפוֹ קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים. רִבִּי יוֹנְה אָמַר. שְׁלָמִים כְּשֵׁירִים. רִבִּי יּוֹסֵה אָמַר. שְׁלָמִים פְּסוּלִים. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. פָּטוּר. סָֽבְרִין מִימַר. פָּטוּר [וְ]כָשֵׁר. פָּֽתְרִין לֵיהּ. פָּטוּר פָּסוּל. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין לָךְ פֶּסַח גּוּפוֹ קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים אֶלָּא שֶׁאָבַד וְנִמְצָא מֵאַחַר שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. פָּטוּר. סָֽבְרִין מִימַר. פָּטוּר כָּשֵׁר. פָּֽתְרִין לָהּ. פָּטוּר פָּסוּל. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. כָּל־שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ בַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ בַפֶּסַח גּוּפוֹ קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. פָּטוּר. סָֽבְרִין מִימַר. פָּטוּר פָּסוּל. פָּֽתְרִין לָהּ. פָּטוּר כָּשֵׁר. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it¹⁴⁰The statement in the Mishnah, when the Pesaḥ was slaughtered even though the owners decided to belong to a different group. In the preceding text from Šabbat19, R. Simeon is more restrictive than R. Meïr; therefore if the Mishnah is compatible with R. Simeon’s position, it certainly is with R. Meïr’s. is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody became disinterested in his Pesaḥ, its body is brought as well-being offering¹⁴¹. Since a Pesaḥ whose time has passed automatically is dedicated as well-being offering, the case here must be that it was slaughtered on the 14th of Nisan. If it is not Pesaḥ, it must be a well-being offering. The question is whether it is qualified and must be eaten, or is disqualified and may not be eaten. If it is disqualified the next question is whether it is disqualified Pesaḥ and must be burned immediately outside the Temple district or is qualified but unused and as well-being sacrifice has to wait until the third day, when it biblically becomes forbidden and must be burned there (Pesachim 6:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.4.1">Mishnaiot 7:6–7).. Rebbi Jonah said, qualified well-being offering. Rebbi Yose said, disqualified well-being offering. But did we not state, “not liable”¹⁴²“Not liable” implies that a sinful act was committed, only it is not criminally prosecutable.? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the only Pesaḥ which itself is brought as well-being offering is what was lost and found after the owner had fulfilled his obligation¹⁴³Pesachim.97a">Babli 97a.. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified¹⁴⁴In the case of the Mishnah, the Pesaḥ which is left without eaters.. Samuel said, in any case where they said that a purification sacrifice is allowed to die¹⁴⁵Mishnah Temurah 4:1–2: The offspring of an animal dedicated as purification offering, the (illegal) replacement of a purification offering, a purification offering whose owner had died, a purification offering which had been lost and was found after the owner had used a replacement, and one who became too old., a Pesaḥ will be brought as well-being sacrifice. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and disqualified. They explain it, not liable and qualified¹⁴³Pesachim.97a">Babli 97a..

רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הַיָּחִיד. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵה מַתִּיר. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. הַן אַשְׁכַּחְנָן פָּטוּר וְכָשֵׁר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּנִּינָן הָכָא. פָּטוּר. וְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. כָּשֵׁר. וְעַל כּוּלָּם הָיָה רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֵׁלְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֵּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר. תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתוֹ וְיֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. נִיחָא שֶׁמֵּתוּ וְשֶׁנִּיטְמְאוּ. שָׁמָּֽשְׁכוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֶת יָדָם. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בַּחַייִם. פְּסוּל מַכְשִׁיר. פָּסוּל הוּא. אִם לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. יֵשׁ מְשִׁיכָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מֵכֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לִמְשׁוֹךְ. פְּסוּל מַכְשִׁיר הוּא. וְטָעוּן צוּרָה. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it¹⁴⁶The last sentence in the Mishnah, that if the owner(s) lost interest, died, or became impure, the slaughterer on the Sabbath is not liable. A difficulty is created by idiomatic rabbinic Hebrew, where “owner” is בְּעָלִים with the verb in the plural whether there is one owner or there are many owners. is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated there¹⁴⁷Pesachim 8:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.8.7.1">Mishnah 8:7. R. Jehudah may read the Mishnah here that if a Pesaḥ was slaughtered for a number of subscribers, and all of them except one either lost interest, or died, or became impure, the sacrifice still is valid even though it would not have been permitted to be slaughtered if the facts had been known beforehand.: “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single individual, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Mana: Where do we find “not liable and qualified”? He told him, here we stated “not liable”, and there we stated “qualified”¹⁴⁸In Pesachim 8:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.8.7.1">Mishnah 8:7 R. Jehudah only says “one does not slaughter;” he does not state that if one slaughtered for a single eater the Pesaḥ was disqualified. Therefore it is qualified even for R. Jehudah.. But about all of them did Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, it should lose its shape and be brought to be burned¹⁴⁹Pesachim.73b">Babli 73b. Since the disqualification is extrinsic, the sacrifice cannot be burned immediately; one has to wait until it must be burned even if it is treated as well-being offering.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose, one understands if they died or became impure. If the owners became disinterested¹⁵⁰In the first two cases, it is an accident and one understands that the sacrifice cannot be burned immediately. But if the owner became disinterested, the animal may not be slaughtered. If it was slaughtered anyhow, the action is illegitimate and the carcass should be burned immediately.? If they are alive, does disqualification qualify? It is disqualified. If after it was slaughtered, can one become disinterested after slaughter? Since he has the right to become disinterested, the disqualification qualifies¹⁵¹K: “It must be R. Simeon’s, since R. Simeon said, one may become disinterested after slaughtering” (up to the time of pouring the blood, Pesachim 8:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.8.3.1">Mishnah 8:3) is suspect as lectio facilior. In keeping with the earlier statements, one may read the scribe’s text as implying that, since before slaughter one may subscribe or cancel the subscription at will, cancelling after slaughter is an excusable error, not intrinsic, and has to follow the general rules of sacrifices becoming disqualified by extrinsic factors., and it needs {losing its} shape.