Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : If one slaughtered the thanks offering and it was discovered that it is a blemished animal, Rabbi Eliezer says: The loaves were consecrated, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: The loaves were not consecrated. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, consistent with the dispute appearing in the mishna.
שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: קָדַשׁ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא קָדַשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree with regard to a case where he slaughtered the thanks offering and it was discovered that it is a tereifa, as all agree that it was not consecrated; and they did not disagree with regard to a case where he slaughtered the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it or to burn the sacrificial portions beyond its designated time, as all agree that it was consecrated; and they did not disagree with regard to a case where he slaughtered the thanks offering and it was discovered that it is a blemished animal, as all agree that it was not consecrated. And with regard to what case did they disagree? They disagree with regard to a case where he slaughtered the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it or to burn the sacrificial portions outside its designated area, as Rabbi Eliezer says: It was consecrated, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It was not consecrated.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה – שֶׁלֹּא קָדַשׁ, וְעַל חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – שֶׁקָּדַשׁ, וְעַל בַּעַל מוּם – שֶׁלֹּא קָדַשׁ. וְעַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? עַל חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: קָדַשׁ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא קָדַשׁ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The baraita continues: In explanation of his opinion, Rabbi Eliezer said: Since an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it beyond its designated time is disqualified and an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area is disqualified, it is reasonable that just as in the case of intent to partake of it beyond its time the loaves were consecrated, so too in the case of intent to partake of it outside its area the loaves were consecrated. Rabbi Yehoshua said: Since an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area is disqualified and an offering discovered to be a blemished animal is disqualified, it is reasonable that just as in the case of a blemished animal the loaves were not consecrated, so too in the case of intent to partake of it outside its area the loaves were not consecrated.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: הוֹאִיל וְחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ פָּסוּל, וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ פָּסוּל, מָה חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – קָדַשׁ, אַף חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – קָדַשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הוֹאִיל וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ פָּסוּל, וּבַעַל מוּם פָּסוּל, מָה בַּעַל מוּם – לֹא קָדַשׁ, אַף חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – לֹא קָדַשׁ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I compared an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area to an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it beyond its designated time, and you compared it to an offering discovered to be a blemished animal. Let us consider to which it is similar. If it is similar to an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it beyond its designated time, we will deduce its halakha from that of an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it beyond its designated time. If it is similar to an offering discovered to be a blemished animal, we will deduce its halakha from that of an offering discovered to be a blemished animal.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: אֲנִי דִּמִּיתִיהוּ לְחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וְאַתָּה דִּמִּיתוֹ לְבַעַל מוּם, נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה – אִם דּוֹמֶה לְחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, נְדוּנֶנּוּ מֵחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, אִם דּוֹמֶה לְבַעַל מוּם, נְדוּנֶנּוּ מִבַּעַל מוּם.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Eliezer began to reason: We deduce the halakha with regard to a disqualification due to improper intention from that of a disqualification due to an improper intention, i.e., the halakha with regard to one who slaughters the animal with intent to partake of it outside its designated area should be deduced from the halakha with regard to one who slaughters it with the intent to partake of it outside its designated time. And we do not deduce the halakha with regard to a disqualification due to improper intention from that of a disqualification due to a blemish in the physical body of the offering.
הִתְחִיל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָדוּן: דָּנִין פְּסוּל מַחְשָׁבָה מִפְּסוּל מַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין פְּסוּל מַחְשָׁבָה מִפְּסוּל הַגּוּף.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Yehoshua began to reason to the contrary: We deduce the halakha with regard to a disqualification that does not include liability for excision from the World-to-Come [karet], i.e., an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area, from that of a disqualification that does not include liability for karet, i.e., an offering discovered to be a blemished animal. And the halakha with regard to an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it beyond its designated time should not be brought as proof, as it is a disqualification that includes liability for karet. And furthermore, even according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that we deduce the halakha from a disqualification due to improper intention, let us deduce the halakha from that of an offering slaughtered not for its sake, as it is a disqualification due to improper intention and it also does not include liability for karet, and the loaves of such an offering were not consecrated.
הִתְחִיל רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לָדוּן: דָּנִין פְּסוּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, מִפְּסוּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, שֶׁפְּסוּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת. וְעוֹד, נְדוּנֶנּוּ מִשֶּׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, שֶׁפְּסוּל מַחְשָׁבָה וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The baraita concludes: And Rabbi Eliezer was silent, conceding to Rabbi Yehoshua. In any event, it is clear in the baraita that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
וְשָׁתַק רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that if the thanks offering was slaughtered and discovered to be a tereifa the loaves were not consecrated, but if it was discovered to be a blemished animal Rabbi Eliezer holds that the loaves were consecrated, what is different if he slaughtered it and it was discovered to be a tereifa such that it is considered a case where its disqualification precedes its slaughter, and the loaves were not consecrated; and what is different if he slaughtered it and it was discovered to be a blemished animal such that it is not considered a case where its disqualification precedes its slaughter, and the loaves were consecrated according to Rabbi Eliezer?
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה, דְּהָוֵי פְּסוּלוֹ קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם, דְּלָא הָוֵי פְּסוּלוֹ קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה?
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara responds: Rabbi Meir is referring to a blemish on the cornea of the eye, and his ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said with regard to this type of blemish: Although animals with such a blemish are disqualified as an offering ab initio, if they ascended the altar they shall not descend, and they are sacrificed on the altar. The Gemara adds: And Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds that if the animal is discovered to be blemished the loaves are not consecrated, says: When Rabbi Akiva said that if they ascended the altar, they shall not descend, he was referring to the disqualification of the offering itself, i.e., that once it ascended it shall not descend. But with regard to the consecration of the loaves through the slaughter of such an animal, he did not say this.
בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ – בִּפְסוּלָא דְּגוּפֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְקַדּוֹשֵׁי לֶחֶם – לָא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The Gemara continues to discuss the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the baraita: It was stated: With regard to a sin offering that one slaughtered with intent to partake of it beyond its designated time, if it ascended the altar it shall not descend. If one slaughtered it with intent to partake of it outside its designated area, Rava says: It shall descend and shall not be burned, and Rabba says: It shall not descend.
אִיתְּמַר: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ, אִם עָלְתָה – לֹא תֵּרֵד. חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, רָבָא אָמַר: תֵּרֵד, רַבָּה אָמַר: לֹא תֵּרֵד.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara suggests: Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who deduces the halakha with regard to a thanks offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area from that of an offering discovered to have a blemish. Accordingly, just as a blemished sin offering descends from the altar even if it has already ascended, so too a sin offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area descends. And Rabba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deduces the halakha with regard to a thanks offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area from that of an offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it beyond its designated time. Accordingly, just as a sin offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it beyond its designated time does not descend from the altar, so too a sin offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area does not descend.
רָבָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְרַבָּה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And Rabba retracted his opinion in favor of the opinion of Rava and ruled that a sin offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area descends from the altar, since Rabbi Eliezer retracted his opinion in favor of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as the baraita teaches that he was silent and accepted the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua. Accordingly, the halakha with regard to an animal slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area should be deduced from that of an offering discovered to have a blemish.
וַהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבָּה לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, מִדַּהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.