1)

LIABILITY FOR AN INVALID SLAUGHTERING (Yerushalmi Halachah 6 Daf 45a)

משנה שחטו שלא לאוכליו ושלא למנוייו לערלים ולטמאים חייב

(a)

(Mishnah): If he slaughtered (the Pesach) Lo L'Ochlav or for those not assigned to it, or for the uncircumcised or for those who are Tamei, he is liable.

לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו למנוייו ושלא למנוייו למולים ולערלים לטהורים ולטמאים פטור

(b)

If he slaughtered it both L'Ochlav and Lo L'Ochlav, both for those assigned and those not assigned on it, for both the circumcised and the uncircumcised, for both those who are Tahor and those who are Tamei, he is exempt.

שחטו ונמצא בעל מום חייב

(c)

If he slaughtered it and then found a blemish, he is liable (as he should have checked it).

שחטו ונמצא טריפה בסתר פטור

(d)

If he slaughtered it and then found a hidden sign of Tereifah, he is exempt.

שחטו ונודע שמשכו הבעלים את ידן או שמתו או שניטמאו פטור מפני ששחט ברשות

(e)

If he slaughtered it and then found that the owners had withdraw themselves from it before the slaughtering, or they had died, or they had become Tamei, he is exempt, as he slaughtered it with permission.

גמרא אמר רבי לעזר למי נצרכה לר' מאיר

(f)

R' Elazar: Only according to R' Meir did the Mishnah need to teach that if he slaughtered it and then found a blemish, he is liable (as even though R' Meir exempts a person who was busy with a Mitzvah, a blemished animal does not busy his mind as it cannot be used for the Pesach offering).

אתיא דרבי לעזר כרבי שמעון בן לקיש כמה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר יש בעשייתו מצוה כן רבי לעזר אמר יש בעשייתו מצוה

(g)

R' Elazar follows R' Shimon ben Lakish earlier who said that R' Meir also requires its performance to be a Mitzvah (but merely being busy with a Mitzvah is not enough).

אין תימר שנייא הוא שהוא בעל מום ובעל מום אין דרכו להתחלף

(h)

Perhaps R' Meir does not require its performance to be a Mitzvah, but R' Meir holds that he is liable in the case of a blemished animal since its identity is not usually changed and he should have checked it.

הרי עגל הרי אין דרכו להתחלף ואמר ר' לעזר דברי רבי מאיר אפילו עגל

(i)

Question: In the case of a calf, its identity is not normally changed (to become a Pesach, as a Pesach must be a lamb or kid), but R' Elazar said that R' Meir's opinion applies even to a calf?

א"ר יוסי אין יסבור רבי לעזר כרבי יוחנן אתיא היא דאמר ר' יוחנן בעל מום אין דרכו להתחלף עגל דרכו להתחלף

(j)

Answer (R' Yosi): Even if you reason that R' Elazar follows R' Yochanan who said that R' Meir exempts even when its performance is not a Mitzvah; nevertheless, here R' Meir holds that he is liable, since a blemished animal's identity is not normally changed with any other sacrifice. This is not the case with a calf, where one could say that he mistakenly thought that it may be used as a Pesach offering.

שכן נצרכה לחלל הא בגלוי חייב

(k)

The Mishnah taught that if he slaughtered it and then found a hidden sign of Tereifah, he is exempt, since it was an internal sign and impossible to have seen. This implies that if it was an open sign of Tereifah, he would be liable!

אמר רבי יוחנן דר"ש הוא

(l)

R' Yochanan: This is the opinion of R' Shimon (who holds since its performance is not a Mitzvah, he is liable, even though his mind is busy with the Mitzvah. R' Meir however holds that in such a case he would be exempt.)

ר' יעקב בר אחא ר' אימי בשם רשב"ל דר"ש הוא

(m)

R' Yaakov bar Acha and R' Imi quoting R"SBL also said that it is R' Shimon.

2)

WHEN A PESACH BECOMES A SHELAMIM (Yerushalmi Halachah 6 Daf 45b)

ר' חמא בר עוקבה בשם ר' יוסי בי ר' חנינה המושך ידו מפסחו גופו קרב שלמים

(a)

R' Chama bar Ukva quoting R' Yosi bei R' Chanina: If one withdraws his hand from his Pesach offering, its body is brought as a Shelamim (rather than taking it out to graze until it receives a blemish and then redeeming it onto money and buying a Shelamim with it).

ר' יונה אמר שלמים כשירים

(b)

R' Yona: It is a valid Shelamim (and may be eaten).

ר' יוסה אמר שלמים פסולים

(c)

R' Yosa: It is an invalid Shelamim (and must graze until receives a blemish and then be redeemed).

והא תנינן פטור סברין מימר פטור וכשר

(d)

Question: But the Mishnah taught that he is exempt which implies that it is valid?

פתרון ליה פטור ופסול

(e)

Answer: He is exempt but it is invalid.

ר' יסא בשם ר' יוחנן אין לך פסח גופו קרב שלמים אלא שאבד ונמצא מאחר שכיפרו הבעלים

(f)

R' Yasa quoting R' Yochanan: The only Pesach that is brought as a Shelamim is when it was lost and then found after the owner sacrificed its replacement.

והא תנינן פטור סברין מימר פטור כשר

(g)

Question: But the Mishnah taught that he is exempt, which implies that it is valid?

פתרין לה פטור פסול

(h)

Answer: He is exempt but it is invalid.

שמואל אמר כל שאמרו בחטאת מתה כיוצא בו בפסח גופו קרב שלמים

(i)

Shmuel: Any case when Chazal said that a Chatas must die (which includes a case when the Chatas was lost and the owner sacrificed its replacement); in a parallel case of a Pesach offering, its body is brought as a Shelamim.

והא תנינן פטור סברין מימר פטור כשר

(j)

Question: But the Mishnah taught that he is exempt, which implies that it is valid?

פתרין לה פטור פסול

(k)

Answer: He is exempt but it is invalid.

רבי יסא בשם רבי יוחנן דרבי יהודה היא דתנינן תמן אין שוחטין את הפסח על היחיד דברי ר' יהודה ור' יוסה מתיר

(l)

R' Yasa quoting R' Yochanan: It is the opinion of R' Yehudah of the Mishnah (in the 8th Perek) - R' Yehudah says that one may not slaughter a Pesach offering for an individual. R' Yosi permits it. (In our Mishnah also, one person was left assigned to the Pesach after the others withdrew their hands - therefore, he is exempt and it is valid.

ר' זעירא בעא קומי רבי מנא הן אשכחנן פטור וכשר

(m)

Question (R' Zeira to R' Mana): We do not find that exempt means exempt and invalid; so why is it necessary to explain that exempt means exempt and valid?

אמר ליה תנינן הכא פטור. ותנינן תמן כשר

(n)

Answer: The word valid is used here to teach like R' Yehudah that one should not slaughter for an individual; it is used there to teach that despite R' Yehudah and R' Yosi disagreeing about whether it is prohibited, they both agree that it is certainly valid.

[דף מו עמוד א] ועל כולם היה רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר תעובר צורתו ויצא לבית השריפה

(o)

About all of these cases (that the owner died, became Tamei or withdrew his hands), R' Yishmael son of R' Yochanan ben Beroka says that he should wait until it becomes Nosar and it can then be burned.

רבי לעזר בי רבי יוסי בעא קומי ר' יוסי ניחא שמתו ושנטמאו שמשכו הבעלים את ידם מה אנן קיימין אם בחיים פסול מכשיר פסול הוא. אם לאחר שחיטה יש משיכה לאחר שחיטה

(p)

Question (R' Elazar bei R' Yosi to R' Yosi): It is understandable if the owner died or became Tamei, but what is the case of the owner withdrawing his hands? If he did it when the animal was alive, it is a disqualification in the body of the animal itself and should be burned immediately?! If he withdrew his hands after slaughtering, one can only do so before slaughtering?!

מכיון שיש לו רשות למשוך פסול מכשיר הוא וטעון צורה

(q)

Answer: He withdrew his hands when the animal was alive, but since he is permitted to do so, it is considered a disqualification in the owner and he must wait until it loses the appearance of meat.

HADRAN ALACH PEREK EILU DEVARIM

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF