## Pesachim Daf 63a

###### Pesachim 63a:1
[Pesachim 63a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/63a:1)

לֵימָא קָסָבְרִי אֲחֵרִים אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף, וְכִדְרָבָא. דְּאָמַר רָבָא: עֲדַיִין הִיא מַחֲלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Let us say that *Aḥerim* hold that slaughter is not** legally significant **until the end,** meaning that the slaughter is considered to take place only at the end of the rite and not during the time it takes to perform the act of slaughter, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rava** in a different context. **As Rava said: It is still a dispute,** meaning that the disagreement whether one is held accountable only for his first expression or also for the conclusion of his statement applies even when it is one’s clear intention that the status he wishes to confer should apply only at a particular time, e.g., if one says that an animal should be consecrated as a burnt-offering until midday and from then on as a peace-offering (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). The opinion of Rabbi Meir, referred to here as *Aḥerim*, is that one is held accountable only for his first expression.


###### Pesachim 63a:2
[Pesachim 63a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/63a:2)

הִילְכָּךְ: הִקְדִּים מוּלִין לַעֲרֵלִים — מוּלִין חָיְילִי, עֲרֵלִים לָא חָיְילִי. הִקְדִּים עֲרֵלִים לְמוּלִין — עֲרֵלִים חָיְילִי, מוּלִין לָא חָיְילִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Therefore,** based on these two assumptions, if **one put the circumcised people before the uncircumcised people,** his statement with regard to **circumcised people applies** but his statement with regard to **uncircumcised people does not apply.** If the slaughter is legally considered to take effect in a single instant, and if one said that his intention is for circumcised people at that moment, his statement takes effect. In the reverse case, if **one put the uncircumcised people before the circumcised people,** his statement with regard to **uncircumcised people applies,** but his statement with regard to **circumcised people does not apply.**


###### Pesachim 63a:3
[Pesachim 63a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/63a:3)

אָמַר רַבָּה: לָא, לְעוֹלָם קָסָבְרִי אֲחֵרִים יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לְתַרְוַויְיהוּ, בֵּין לְמוּלִין בֵּין לַעֲרֵלִים, וְהוֹצִיא בְּפִיו ״לַעֲרֵלִים״, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לוֹמַר ״לְמוּלִין״ עַד שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה שְׁחִיטָה בַּ״עֲרֵלִים״. וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: לָא בָּעֵינַן פִּיו וְלִבּוֹ שָׁוִים. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי בָּעֵינַן פִּיו וְלִבּוֹ שָׁוִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: No,** we should not say this. **Actually, *Aḥerim* hold that slaughter is** legally significant **from beginning to end, and with what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where one decided in his mind** to slaughter the offering **for both of them, both circumcised and uncircumcised people, and he verbally expressed** his intention with the phrase: **For uncircumcised people, but did not have a chance to say: For circumcised people, before the slaughter was** already **finished** as he was saying: **For uncircumcised people. And it is with regard to this** point **that they disagree: Rabbi Meir,** who is *Aḥerim*, **holds that we do not require that one’s mouth and heart be the same;** what is legally significant is his verbal expression. Since he said: For uncircumcised people, he has disqualified the offering. **And the Rabbis hold that we require that his mouth and heart be the same.** Since he wanted to express his intent for both circumcised and uncircumcised people, he has not disqualified the offering.


###### Pesachim 63a:4
[Pesachim 63a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/63a:4)

וְקָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא בָּעֵינַן פִּיו וְלִבּוֹ שָׁוִין? וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין לוֹמַר ״תְּרוּמָה״, וְאָמַר ״מַעֲשֵׂר״; ״מַעֲשֵׂר״, וְאָמַר ״תְּרוּמָה״. אוֹ: ״שֶׁאֵינִי נִכְנָס לְבַיִת זֶה״, וְאָמַר ״לָזֶה״; ״שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לָזֶה״, וְאָמַר ״לָזֶה״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ פִּיו וְלִבּוֹ שָׁוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise: **But does Rabbi Meir hold that we require that his mouth and heart be the same?** The Gemara **raises a contradiction** based on a mishna in tractate *Terumot* that states: With regard to **one who intended to say** that the produce he has designated should be ***teruma*, but he** mistakenly **said** the word **tithe;** or he intended to say **tithe but** mistakenly **said *teruma*;** or he intended to vow: **I will not enter this house, but** mistakenly **said: That** house, i.e., he mistakenly referred to a different house; or he intended to vow: **I will not derive benefit from this person, but he said: From that** person, i.e., he mistakenly referred to someone else; **he has not said anything until his mouth and heart are the same.** This is an unattributed mishna, and unattributed *mishnayot* are presumed to be authored by Rabbi Meir.


###### Pesachim 63a:5
[Pesachim 63a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/63a:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רֵישָׁא, דְּאָמַר ״סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן לְמוּלִין, וְסִימָן שֵׁנִי אַף לַעֲרֵלִים״ — דִּבְסִימָן שֵׁנִי נָמֵי פְּתִיכִי בֵּיהּ מוּלִין. סֵיפָא, דְּאָמַר ״סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן לַעֲרֵלִים, סִימָן שֵׁנִי לְמוּלִים״ — דִּבְסִימָן רִאשׁוֹן הָא לָא פְּתִיכִי בֵּיהּ מוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said** the following explanation: We are dealing with a case where the person expressed two different intentions within the act of slaughter itself, as valid slaughter involves cutting most of both the windpipe and the esophagus of the animal. **The first clause** is referring to a case where **he said:** I cut **the first** organ **for circumcised people and the second** organ **even for uncircumcised people, so that in the second** organ **even circumcised people are included.** Consequently, he had circumcised people in mind at each stage of the slaughtering. **The latter clause** is referring to a case where **he said:** I cut **the first** organ **for uncircumcised people** and **the second** organ **for circumcised people, so that in the first** organ **circumcised people are not included,** and his intent during that stage is solely for uncircumcised people.


###### Pesachim 63a:6
[Pesachim 63a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/63a:6)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר. וְרַבָּנַן לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Meir follows** his own line of **reasoning, as he says** that ***piggul* status can be conferred** upon an offering **at half of what renders it permitted.** In other words, *piggul* status applies not only when one has a disqualifying intent during the entire act that renders the animal permitted, e.g., while slaughtering both the windpipe and the esophagus, but even if one has the disqualifying intent during half of the act that renders the animal permitted, e.g., while slaughtering one of those two organs. **And the Rabbis** also **follow** their regular line of **reasoning, as they say** that ***piggul* status cannot be conferred at half of what permits** it. Since he expressed his intent for both uncircumcised and circumcised people over the course of the entire act of slaughter, the offering is not disqualified.


###### Pesachim 63a:7
[Pesachim 63a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/63a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הֶחָמֵץ — עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַתָּמִיד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַפֶּסַח בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִשְׁמוֹ — חַיָּיב, וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ — פָּטוּר. וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים, בֵּין לִשְׁמָן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who slaughters the Paschal lamb with leavened bread** still in his possession **violates a negative commandment,** as the Torah states: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the sacrifice of the festival of Passover be left until the morning” (Exodus 34:25). **Rabbi Yehuda says: Even** one who slaughters **the daily** afternoon **offering** on Passover eve with leaven in his possession violates the commandment. **Rabbi Shimon says:** One who slaughters **the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth** of Nisan **for its** own **purpose** with leaven in his possession **is liable;** but if he slaughtered it **for a different purpose he is exempt. And** for **all other offerings** that one slaughters on Passover eve, when owning leaven is prohibited, **whether** he slaughtered them **for their** own **purpose or** he slaughtered them **for a different purpose, he is exempt.**


###### Pesachim 63a:8
[Pesachim 63a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/63a:8)

וּבַמּוֹעֵד, לִשְׁמוֹ — פָּטוּר. שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ — חַיָּיב. וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים, בֵּין לִשְׁמָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן — חַיָּיב. חוּץ מִן הַחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And during the festival** of Passover, if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb **for its** own **purpose he is exempt.** Since a Paschal lamb that is slaughtered for its own purpose at an improper time is disqualified, it is not an offering at all and there is no violation of the commandment: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.” However, if he slaughtered it **for a different purpose** and thereby validated the sacrifice as a peace-offering, **he is liable** for having sacrificed it with leaven in his possession. **And** for **all other offerings** that one slaughters on Passover, when it is prohibited to slaughter with leaven in one’s possession, **whether** he slaughtered them **for their** own **purpose** or he slaughtered them **for a different purpose, he is liable.** This is **with the exception of a sin-offering that he slaughtered for a different purpose** with leaven in his possession. Unlike other offerings, a sin-offering is disqualified if it is slaughtered for a different purpose, and therefore one does not violate the prohibition of “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.”


###### Pesachim 63a:9
[Pesachim 63a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/63a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הֶחָמֵץ לַשּׁוֹחֵט אוֹ לַזּוֹרֵק

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One is never liable** for having violated the commandment: “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread” **unless the leavened bread belongs to the one who slaughters** the Paschal lamb, **or to the one who sprinkles** its blood,