Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 60

1) HAVING TWO "MACHSHAVOS" DURING ONE "AVODAH"

QUESTION: The Mishnah (59b) states that if the Korban Pesach was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah, or if any of the other three Avodos of the Korban were done she'Lo Lishmah, the Korban is Pasul. The Mishnah also states that if "it was done Lishmah and she'Lo Lishmah" it is Pasul. In the Gemara, Rav Papa (or, according to some texts, Rava (Tosfos)) asks what the Mishnah means by that. Does it mean that the Korban is Pasul if one has these two thoughts ("Machshavos") while performing *a single* Avodah (such as the Shechitah of the Korban), and the Korban is Pasul because of the rule that we go along with all of the person's thoughts, both the first and last Machshavah (which was she'Lo Lishmah), like Rebbi Yosi? Or does the Mishnah mean to say that two Machshavos during *two* Avodos, such as performing the Shechitah with the Machshavah of Lishmah and performing the Zerikah with the Machshavah of she'Lo Lishmah, makes the Korban Pasul, but thinking both Machshavos during *one* Avodah does not disqualify the Korban (if the first thought was "Lishmah") because we accept only the first thought and ignore the latter one (like Rebbi Meir)?

The Gemara attempts to prove from the next Mishnah (61a) that our Mishnah is referring to two Machshavos during one Avodah. The next Mishnah says that a Korban that was slaughtered l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav (for those who were fit to eat it, and for those who were unfit to eat it) is nevertheless Kosher. The Gemara proves that these two Machshavos are occurring in the same Avodah. If so, our Mishnah, which also deals with having two Machshavos (Lishmah and she'Lo Lishmah), is referring to two Machshavos occurring during the same Avodah as well.

How does the Gemara prove that the Mishnah on 61a is discussing two Machshavos in a single Avodah? The logic of the Gemara is as follows. We know that the Machshavah of she'Lo l'Ochlav only invalidates the Korban if one had that thought during Shechitah (61a). In light of that rule, it would not make sense for the Mishnah to be discussing having the two Machshavos of l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav in *two* different Avodos (i.e. thinking l'Ochlav during Shechitah, and thinking she'Lo l'Ochlav during Zerikah), since it goes without saying that in such a case the Korban is Kosher -- she'Lo l'Ochlav only invalidates the Korban when done during Shechitah. And if the Mishnah is simply teaching that a Machshavah of "she'Lo l'Ochlav" does not affect the Korban any other Avodah but Shechitah, then why does it mention that the person's first Machshavah, during Shechitah, was l'Ochlav? What difference does that first Machshavah make?

If the Mishnah is indeed discussing two Avodos, then it must have mentioned the Machshavah of l'Ochlav to teach through inference that if both Machshavos would have been during *one* Avodah (i.e. the Shechitah), then the Korban would be Pasul. But that is known not to be true -- as long as one had in mind at least *one* person who is fit to eat the Korban, the Korban is valid!

Therefore, the Mishnah cannot be referring to two Avodos. It must be talking about having two Machshavos even during a *single* Avodah, and the Mishnah is teaching that a Korban that was slaughtered l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav is Kosher.

RASHI (DH Heichi Dami) explains the Gemara's initial assumption when it said that the Mishnah discussing l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav was referring to two Avodos: one slaughtered the Korban l'Ochlav, *with intention to* be Zorek the blood she'Lo l'Ochlav. Why does Rashi explain that the two Avodos are (1) Shechitah, and (2) Shechitah with intention to do Zerikah? He should have explained simply that the two Avodos are (1) Shechitah and (2) *Zerikah*! This is how he explains the case of Lishmah and she'Lo Lishmah (Mishnah, 59b, RASHI DH Oh Lishmo) -- it means that one did Shechitah Lishmah, and then did *Zerikah* she'Lo Lishmah! Why does he not explain that way with regard to l'Ochlav and she'lo l'Ochlav?

ANSWERS:

(a) The MAHARSHA on TOSFOS (DH Ileima) explains that Rashi (and Tosfos) explained the Mishnah on 61a as referring to Shechitah and Shechitah with intention to do Zerikah, because the Mishnah states, "If one *slaughtered* it... l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav... it is Kosher." From the words in the Mishnah it seems clear that it is only discussing Shechitah. If so, how can the Gemara assume that it is referring to *two* Avodos? In response to this problem, Rashi explains that the Gemara assumed that the Mishnah refers to two Avodos that are both *within the Shechitah* -- doing the Shechitah l'Ochlav, and doing the Shechitah with intention to do the Zerikah she'Lo l'Ochlav.

However, the DEVAR SHMUEL asks that this answer does not seem to be consistent with the words of Rashi on 60b (DH Ela Lav b'Avodah Achas)! When the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah (on 61a) means having two Machshavos in either one Avodah or in two Avodos, Rashi contradicts what he wrote earlier and explains that the two Avodos are (1) Shechitah and (2) Zerikah! There, Rashi is content with explaining that the Mishnah indeed refers to another Avodah other than Shechitah, despite the fact that the Mishnah mentions only Shechitah! Why, then, did Rashi explain differently in the Gemara's Hava Amina?

The answer to his question may be that when the Mishnah (61a) says, "If one *slaughtered* it...," it indeed means that both Machshavos were had during Shechitah, as the Maharsha explains. In the Hava Amina, when the Gemara assumed that the two Machshavos were thought during two Avodos and *not* during one Avodah, we have no choice but to say that the second Avodah means Shechitah with intention to do Zerikah she'Lo Lishmah, for what else can the phrase "if one *slaughtered*" mean? However, when the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah refers to having the two Machshavos *both* during one Avodah and during two Avodos, then when the Mishnah says, "If one *slaughtered* it...," referring only to Shechitah, it merely wants to point out that the Mishnah's Halachah applies also when the two Machshavos were done during one Avodah (Shechitah). It is understood, though, that the Mishnah's Halachah will apply when the Machshavos occur during two Avodos as well. Since the Mishnah does not address specifically how one thinks two Machshavos during two Avodos, Rashi is justified in explaining that the second Avodah was the Zerikah itself. (M. Kornfeld)

We are left, though, with one question. Why did Rashi feel more comfortable explaining in the Gemara's conclusion that the second Avodah is the actual Zerikah? There are two possible answers to this question:

1. The Gemara later (61b) seems to conclude that if one slaughters a Korban having in mind that he plans to perform the Zerikah of the blood for the sake of Arelim (uncircumcised people), the Korban is Pasul. Such a case is worse than actually doing the Zerikah itself for Arelim, since the invalidating Machshavah occurred *during the Shechitah*. The same logic could be applied to the case of l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav -- if one thinks, during the Shechitah, that he is doing the Shechitah in order to do the Zerikah she'Lo l'Ochlav, then the Korban could be Pasul. Therefore, it is safer to explain that the Korban is kosher only when the Machshavah of she'Lo Lishmah occurred during the actual Zerikah. (With this, Rashi effectively answers the question of Tosfos on 60a, DH Ileima.)

It was only in the Gemara's original assumption that Rashi was forced to explain that the Korban is valid even if the second Machshavah was "Shechitah *in order* to do Zerikah she'Lo Lishmah," since the Mishnah specifically said "If one *slaughtered* it... l'Ochlav and she'Lo l'Ochlav... it is Kosher," as the Maharsha pointed out.

2. Alternatively, perhaps Rashi does not differentiate between a Machshavah during Shechitah *on condition to do the Zerikah* she'Lo Lishmah and a Machshavah during the actual Zerikah. Whatever the Halachah is for a Machshavah during Zerikah, that Halachah will apply to a Machshavah *on condition to do the Zerikah*. (See also Insights to 61:2:b) Since the two are equivalent, Rashi prefers to give the simpler case for the Gemara's conclusion, of Machshavah done at the actual time of Zerikah.

60b