Talmud su Zevahim 1:1
כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, כְּשֵׁרִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. חוּץ מִן הַפֶּסַח וּמִן הַחַטָּאת. הַפֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, וְחַחַטָּאת, בְּכָל זְמָן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף הָאָשָׁם. הַפֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, וְהַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם, בְּכָל זְמָן. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַחַטָּאת בָּאָה עַל חֵטְא, וְהָאָשָׁם בָּא עַל חֵטְא. מַה חַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, אַף הָאָשָׁם פָּסוּל שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ:
Tutte le offerte che non sono offerte per se stesse sono valide, ma non hanno adempiuto agli obblighi dei [loro] proprietari. [Questo è vero] fatta eccezione per l'offerta della Pasqua ebraica e il Chattat [un'offerta portata a espiare il peccato]. L'offerta della Pasqua [non è valida se non macellata per se stessa] al momento opportuno, e la Chattat [non è valida se non macellata per se stessa] in qualsiasi momento. Il rabbino Eliezer dice: Anche l' Asham [un'offerta portata ad alleviare la colpa]. L'offerta della Pasqua ebraica [non è valida se non macellata per se stessa] al momento opportuno, e il Chattat e l' Asham [non sono validi se non macellati per se stessa] in qualsiasi momento. Il rabbino Eliezer disse: Il Chattat viene [per espiare] per il peccato e l' Asham viene [per espiare] per il peccato. Proprio come il Chattat che non è [offerto] per se stesso non è valido, così anche l' Asham che non è [offerto] per se stesso non è valido.
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
Rebbi Simlai came to Rebbi Jonathan116Babli 62b. R. Simlai became famous as a preacher. K and the Medieval sources add that he was too young to be taught these matters.. He said to him, teach me homiletics. He answered him, I have a tradition from my forefathers not to teach homiletics either to a Babylonian or to a Southerner, since they are gross in spirit and have little learning. And you are from Nahardea and live in the South. He said to him, tell me this one thing, what is the difference between “for its purpose and not for its purpose” and “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”117Why is the former disqualified and the latter qualified.? He answered him, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, the disqualification is intrinsic. “For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, the disqualification is of others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, you cannot pick out the disqualified from the qualified. [“For those who eat it and those who cannot eat it”, you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified.]118aThe corrector’s addition is justified by K, which reads “you can’t” instead of “you can. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices118Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices, except Pesaḥ and purification offerings, which were slaughtered not for their purpose are qualified but do not relieve their owners from their obligations.”; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
Rebbi Yose said, from that of Rebbi Eleazar one may deduce two [conclusions]. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah if he slaughtered it for those who eat it, but it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. But it is disqualified if from the start he slaughtered for those who eat it and it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it115It seems that R. Eleazar interprets the Mishnah that the sacrifice is qualified if the slaughterer intended it for the entire group, without inquiring whether all members of the group were entitled to eat or able to consume a minimum. If then it turned out that some members were barred or unable to participate, there was no false intent and the sacrifice is qualified. But if from the start there was explicit intent to include incapable or disqualified persons, the intent was disqualifying (S. Liebermann).. Then its disqualification is of others and you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified, and you are saying so? But it must be the following, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices118Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1: “All sacrifices, except Pesaḥ and purification offerings, which were slaughtered not for their purpose are qualified but do not relieve their owners from their obligations.”; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ119Of all the arguments of R. Jonathan, only the last is valid.. Rebbi Abin said, there are others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all services120Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:4: The sacrifice becomes disqualified [by wrong intent] in four cases: For slaughter, for reception of the blood, for carrying the blood to the altar, for pouring the blood.; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to slaughtering.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin
Rebbi Eleazar said, sisters are not preliminarily married but in the case of purification sacrifices it atoned159If a person simultaneously slaughters two purification sacrifices for one transgression, he has fulfilled his obligation. (Mishnah Me‘ilah 1:2 describes this situation: A person dedicated an animal as purification sacrifice. Then this animal was lost, another was dedicated as replacement, and then the first one was found before the second was sacrificed. Each of the animals becomes the replacement of the other.) This statement is nontrivial since as a general rule an animal dedicated as purification sacrifice but whose owner then used another animal for the same purpose can no longer be used for anything.. How is that? If one slaughtered two purification offerings for one transgression160Simultaneously., the altar selects that which is appropriate161Expression of Mishnah Zebaḥim9:1. Since both sacrifices have equal standing, there is no reason to prefer one to the other. Only selected parts of the purification offering are given to the altar; the remainder of the meat has to be eaten by the priest (Lev. 6:17–23).; both are forbidden to be eaten162The priests are commanded to eat the meat of the animal which effects the purification. But in this case it is impossible to determine which animal effects the purification.. If one slaughtered two reparation offerings for one damage, the altar selects that which is appropriate; both are forbidden to be eaten163The rules of reparation sacrifices follow those of purification sacrifices; Lev. 7:7.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the first164This deals with a separate case, that the animals were slaughtered one after the other. one was slaughtered not for its purpose but the second for its purpose, it did atone since the first, which was not for its purpose, becomes acceptable only through the purpose stated later165Mishnah Zebaḥim 1:1 states that both purification and Passover sacrifices which were slaughtered not for their stated purpose are invalid and cannot be offered to the altar. Normally, a purification offering which is invalidated at the time of slaughter is burned outside the Temple precinct and another sacrifice is required independent of the first. But if the second sacrifice is slaughtered correctly immediately after the first, when its flesh is still in the Temple precinct, then the correct slaughter of the second rehabilitates the first, both sacrifices have their selected parts offered on the altar, and both are forbidden as food to the priests.. But if the first was slaughtered for its purpose but the second not for its purpose: if the first atoned for what may the second atone? For impurity which occured between the first and the second166This answer makes more sense in Šebuot 1:4 (33b 1.4) where the relative merit of the purification sacrifices on New Year’s day are discussed, one required for the New Moon and one for the holiday. If one sacrifice purifies, what is the use of the second? To atone for impurities which might have occurred in the meantime. In the case discussed here, the second sacrifice is invalid and useless.. But for Passover sacrifices it did not atone167The Passover sacrifice does not atone. He holds that people who bring a Passover sacrifice which cannot be eaten did not fulfill their duty, Mishnah Pesaḥim7:4. since the Passover sacrifice is only for the meat to be eaten. This does not follow Rebbi Nathan since Rebbi Nathan said, one fulfills one’s duty by sprinkling [the blood] without eating168Pesahim 7:5 (34b 1. 45), Babli 78b..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy