Talmud for Pesachim 7:2
ר"מ אומר אוכלין כל חמש ושורפין בתחלת שש ר' יהודה אומר אוכלין כל ארבע ותולין כל חמש ושורפין בתחילת שש:
In standing up to recite the Prayer ('Amida), the feet must be met. There are two opinions on this subject, viz. that of R. Levi, and that of R. Shimon. The one says: it is to imitate the angels; the other says: it is to imitate the priests. The latter opinion is founded on the verse, " Neither shalt thou go up by steps to mine altar" (Exod. xx. 2); for the priests had to go to the altar by placing the toe beside the heel, and the heel beside the toe (i.e. by taking very little steps). The former opinion is based on the verse, " And their feet were straight feet" (Ezek. i. 7). Now, II. Hanina bar-Andira, in the name of R. Samuel bar-Zootai, says : The angels have no knee-joint, according to (Dan. vii. 16), " I came near unto one of them, that stood (always) by.'" R. Hoona says: If one sees the priests in the Synagogue at the time of their first blessing of the people, one must say: «' Bless the Lord, ye his angels" (Ps. ciii. 20); if at the second benediction: "Bless ye the Lord, all ye his hosts" (Ps. ciii. 21); if at the third benediction: "Bless the Lord, all his works" (Ps. ciii. 22). For the Prayer of Mousaph (additional)
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose66The slaughterer, who most probably is not priestly, is different from the person who will pour the blood. He has the correct intention for his own action, but intends a future action to be disqualifying. Does this have an influence on the status of Pesaḥ or purification offering? Babli Zevaḥim9b/10a, Ḥulin 39a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service66aIn K: “Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no transfer of ‘not for its purpose’ from service to service.”? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul67The source is Lev. 19:7. A well-being offering must be eaten on the day of its offering and the next. But if it is intended to be eaten on the third day, it is piggul(“mushy”) and will not be wanted. Eating from sacrificial meat on the third day is sinful, but this has no influence on the validity of the sacrifice. But from the start intending to eat on the third day disqualifies the sacrifice and any consumption of its meat, even on the first day, is a deadly sin. This clearly is disqualification by intent for a future action by a different person. The argument is accepted in both Babli sources.. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul68It would cause disqualification but not piggul.? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification69He objects of comparing required actions in the presentation of sacrifices to piggul.. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified70Since the Cohen who receives the blood must be present at the moment of slaughter, the Cohen’s intent is what counts; a contrary intent by the slaughterer is irrelevant since it cannot precede the Cohen’s.? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified71In this sentence and the next, only the scribe’s text is reproduced and translated; the corrector’s additions and deletions are disregarded. The scribe’s text is fully confirmed by K.
The argument goes as follows: For any action up to the pouring of the blood, the wrong intent before or during the action disqualifies. But for actions required after the pouring of the blood, such as burning of the parts or eating the meat, a wrong intent before the pouring of the blood disqualifies, but a wrong intent at the moment of the action is irrelevant. Therefore, the rules of piggul cannot be used to infer rules for actions preceding the pouring of the blood.. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.
The argument goes as follows: For any action up to the pouring of the blood, the wrong intent before or during the action disqualifies. But for actions required after the pouring of the blood, such as burning of the parts or eating the meat, a wrong intent before the pouring of the blood disqualifies, but a wrong intent at the moment of the action is irrelevant. Therefore, the rules of piggul cannot be used to infer rules for actions preceding the pouring of the blood.. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.
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