Study Pesachim folio 60A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
או דילמא בשתי עבודות תנן, ואפילו לרבי מאיר דאמר תפוס לשון ראשון — הני מילי בעבודה אחת, אבל בשתי עבודות — מודה דמיפסיל.
Or perhaps the Mishnah meant to teach a case of two rites. During the first rite, one had a particular intent, and during the second rite he had a different intent. Then, even according to R' Meir, who said that in general we hold one accountable for the first expression, this rule applies only in one rite, but in two rites even he concedes that it disqualifies. Since the second statement was made during a different rite, it too is significant.
אמרי: אהייא? אי נימא אשלא לשמו ולשמו, בין בעבודה אחת בין בשתי עבודות, בין לרבי מאיר בין לרבי יוסי — איפסיל ליה מקמייתא, דהא לרבי יוסי נמי, אף בגמר דבריו אדם נתפס אית ליה. אלא: אלשמו ושלא לשמו — מאי?
They said: To which part of the Mishnah does this discussion refer? If we say that the discussion pertains to the case in the Mishnah of slaughtering an offering first for a different purpose and then for its own purpose, then whether these intentions are verbalized during one rite or during two rites, whether according to the opinion of R' Meir or according to the opinion of R' Yosei, the offering is disqualified from the first statement, as also R' Yosei holds that a person is held accountable even for the conclusion of his statement. That does not mean that the final statement is primary but that it too has value and complements the previous one. Therefore, since one initially intended to offer the Paschal lamb for a different purpose, it was immediately disqualified. Rather, the question is concerning the case of slaughtering an animal first for its own purpose and then for a different purpose; what exactly are the parameters of that case?
תא שמע: הפסח ששחטו שלא לשמו, וקבל והלך וזרק שלא לשמו. היכי דמי? אי נימא כדקתני, למה לי עד דמחשב לכולהו? מקמייתא איפסיל ליה!
The Talmud cites a series of sources in order to resolve this question. Come and hear a resolution to the question from what is taught in the Mishnah: A Paschal lamb that one sacrificed for a different purpose, and he received the blood, and carried it to the altar, and sprinkled it for a different purpose, is disqualified. This needs clarification: What exactly are the circumstances? If we say that the case is exactly as it was taught, that these 4 rites are all performed for a different purpose, why do I need to say that he intended to perform all of them, i.e., the slaughter, receiving of the blood, carrying the blood to the altar, and sprinkling it upon the altar, for a different purpose? The offering has been disqualified from the first improper intention during slaughter.