שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָיו, לַעֲרֵלִים וְלִטְמֵאִים, פָּסוּל. לְאוֹכְלָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו, לִמְנוּיָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָיו, לְמוּלִים וְלַעֲרֵלִים, לִטְמֵאִים וְלִטְהוֹרִים, כָּשֵׁר. שְׁחָטוֹ קֹדֶם חֲצוֹת, פָּסוּל, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יב) בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם. שְׁחָטוֹ קֹדֶם לַתָּמִיד, כָּשֵׁר, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא אֶחָד מְמָרֵס בְּדָמוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק דַּם הַתָּמִיד. וְאִם נִזְרַק, כָּשֵׁר:
S'il ne l'a pas abattu pour ses mangeurs [par exemple, pour un homme malade, un vieil homme et un enfant, qui ne peut pas manger une chair de la taille d'une olive, et il n'y en a pas d'autres pour cela mais eux, c'est pasul (inapte ), il est écrit (Exode 12: 4): "Un homme selon sa nourriture tu compteras" —celui qui est capable de manger.], et non pour ceux qui sont comptés pour cela [c'est-à-dire, si une compagnie a été comptée pour cela et qu'il l'a massacrée pour une autre compagnie], pour les incirconcis, [c'est-à-dire, pour les Israélites dont les frères sont morts à cause de circoncision (afin qu'ils n'aient pas été circoncis), ceux-ci étant impropres à manger le Pessa'h, il est écrit (Exode 12:48): "Et nul incirconcis n'en mangera."], et pour les impurs [Eux aussi, il leur est interdit de manger de la nourriture consacrée, et ils encourent des kareth s'ils le font] (s'il l'a massacrée pour l'une des choses ci-dessus), c'est pasul. (S'il l'abattait) pour ses mangeurs et non pour ses mangeurs, pour ceux qui comptaient pour lui et pour ceux qui ne comptaient pas pour lui, pour les circoncis et les incirconcis, pour les impurs et les purs, il est kasher. [et ce n'est pas comme "lishmo et pas lishmo", qui est pasul. Car là le p'sul est dans son corps, c'est-à-dire que la pensée invalidante se rapporte au corps de l'offrande, mais avec "pour ses mangeurs et non pour ses mangeurs, etc.", la pensée invalidante ne se rapporte pas au corps de l'offrande, mais à quelque chose en dehors.] S'il l'a massacrée avant midi, c'est pasul, il est écrit (Exode 12: 6): «vers le soir». S'il l'a abattu avant le tamid, il est kasher, tant que quelqu'un remue son sang [pour qu'il ne se fige pas, pour qu'il soit propre à l'arrosage] jusqu'à ce que le sang du tamid ait été aspergé. Et s'il a été aspergé [avant le sang du tamid], il est kasher. [Car même si le Pessa'h suit le tamid, il est écrit à propos du Pessa'h (Deutéronome 16: 6): «le soir» (Exode 12: 6): «vers le soir», il n'est pas invalidé par cela.]
Tosefta Pesachim
One who slaughtered [the Passover offering] for its purpose but completed [the rituals associated with the sacrifice] for a different purpose -- it is valid because [a sacrifice] is rendered valid through the slaughter. How is it "slaughtered for those who cannot eat it" (Pes. 5:3)? [This applies where] he slaughtered for a sick person or for an elderly person who cannot eat an olive's-bulk. How is it [slaughtered] for "those who are not registered" (ibid.)? [This applies where] he slaughtered it for members of a different collective. [If] he slaughtered for [both] circumcised and uncircumcised, or for [both] impure persons and for pure persons, it is valid. Abba Shaul disqualifies it, and it is logical that it should be disqualified, since [a person's unfit status] at the time [of the sacrifice] disqualifies [a sacrifice], and an uncircumcised person is disqualified *and an impure person is disqualified (following the GR"A). Just as "the time" (i.e., where the butcher both intends that sacrifice be eaten in its proper time and not at its proper time, see Minchat Bikkurim) makes it [disqualified under the principle of] "the part is like the whole," so too an uncircumcised person makes it [disqualified under] "the part is like the whole." Or perhaps look at it this way: Since an impure person and an uncircumcised person are disqualified, just as [partial] impurity does not cause [application of the principle] "the part is like the whole," thus so too a [partially] uncircumcised person does not cause [application of the principle] "the part is like the whole." Let us see to what case it is similar: We derive a matter that does not apply to every offering (i.e., lack of circumcision), from a [different] matter that does not apply to every offering (i.e., impurity), and it is proven from "time," which [also] does not apply to all offerings. Or perhaps look at it this way: We derive a matter which does not permit exception to a general prohibition, from a [different] matter which does not permit an exception to a general prohibition, and it is not proven from impurity, which does permit an exception to a general prohibition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosefta Pesachim
A Passover offering that was slaughtered in the morning of the fourteenth [of Nissan] that was not [slaughtered] by its name (i.e., it was designated for a different purpose, see Pes. 6:5), Rabbi Yehoshua deems it fit as though it was slaughtered on the thirteenth. Ben Beteira deems it disqualified as though it was slaughtered in the evening. Said Rabbi Yehoshua, "Since on the thirteenth it is not fit [to be a Pesach offering], and on the morning of the fourteenth it is not fit, would you not say that [if it was slaughtered] on the thirteenth for a different purpose it should be deemed valid? [Thus,] even on the morning of the fourteenth, if he slaughtered it for a different purpose, it it valid." [However,] he then reconsidered and instead supported the words of Ben Beteira [which were as follows]: "No. If you hold that on the thirteenth that it is not even somewhat fit [to be designated as a Passover offering], you must say that on the morning of the fourteenth, when it is at least somewhat fit [to be so designated], since it is at least somewhat fit, if it was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth for a different purpose, it is disqualified."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
