פסחים 69 — parallel

69:1

And R. Eliezer? — In his view the shebuth [required] for a precept is more important. It was taught. R. Eliezer said: I argue, if the necessary adjuncts of the precept which [come] after shechitah, when the precept has [already] been performed, override the Sabbath; shall not the necessary adjuncts of the precept which [come] before shechitah override the Sabbath! Said R. Akiba to him: If the necessary adjuncts of the precept which [come] after shechitah override the Sabbath, the reason is because the shechitah has [already] overridden the Sabbath; will you say that the necessary adjuncts of the precept before the shechitah shall override the Sabbath, seeing that the shechitah has not [yet] overridden the Sabbath? Another argument is: the sacrifice may be found to be unfit, and thus he will be found retrospectively to have desecrated the Sabbath. If so, let us not slaughter it either, lest the sacrifice be found unfit, and thus it be found that he retrospectively desecrated the Sabbath? — Rather, he first told him this [argument], and he refuted it; and then he told him this ‘the reason is etc. be studied by day and by night, heaven and earth would not enjoy permanence. How then could R. Shesheth take such a selfish view of his studies? R. AKIBA ANSWERED AND SAID: LET HAZA'AH PROVE IT etc. It was taught, R. Eliezer said to him: ‘Akiba, you have refuted me by shechitah,’ by shechitah shall be his death!’ Said he to him ‘Master, do not deny me at the time of argument: I have thus received [the law] from you. [vis.] haza'ah is a shebuth and does not override the Sabbath.’ Then since he himself had taught it to him, what is the reason that he retracted? — Said ‘Ulla: When R. Eliezer taught it to him it was concerning haza'ah for [the sake of] terumah, since terumah itself does not override the Sabbath; [and] R. Akiba too, when he refuted him refuted him by haza'ah for [the sake of] terumah, which is [likewise] a religious duty and is [usually forbidden] as a shebuth; but he [R. Eliezer] thought that he was refuting him by haza'ah for the Passover sacrifice. Rabbah raised an objection:R.Akiba answered and said, Let the haza'ah of a person unclean through the dead prove [refute] it, — when his seventh [day] falls on the Sabbath and on the eve of Passover, so that it is a religious duty and it is [only]a shebuth, yet it does not override the Sabbath. Hence he [R. Eliezer] certainly taught him about haza'ah for [the sake of] the Passover sacrifice. Then since he [himself] had taught it to him what is the reason that R. Eliezer rebutted him [thus]? — R. Eliezer had forgotten his own tradition, and R. Akiba came to remind him of his tradition. Then let him tell it to him explicitly? — He thought that it would not be mannerly. Now, what is the reason that haza'ah does not override the Sabbath; consider, it is mere handling, [then] let it override the Sabbath on account of the Passover sacrifice? — Said Rabbah, It is a preventive measure, lest he take it [the water of purification] and carry it four cubits in public ground. But according to R. Eliezer, let us [indeed] carry it, for R. Eliezer ruled, The necessary adjuncts to a precept override the Sabbath? I will tell you: that is only when the man himself is fit [to perform the precept] and the obligation lies upon him; but here that the man himself is not fit, the obligation does not lie upon him. Rabbah said: According to the words of R. Eliezer, [if there is] a healthy infant, one may heat water for him to strengthen him and to circumcise him on the Sabbath, since it is fit for him. [If there is] a sickly infant, one may not heat hot water for him to strengthen him and to circumcise him, since it is not fit for him. Said Raba: But if he is healthy, why does he need hot water to strengthen him? Rather, said Raba, all are regarded as invalids in respect to circumcision: both in the case of a strong infant or a sickly infant, one may not heat hot water for him to strengthen him and to circumcise him on the Sabbath, since it is not fit for him. Abaye raised an objection against him: An [adult] uncircumcised person who did not circumcise himself [on the eve of Passover] is punished by kareth: this is the view of R. Eliezer. Now here, though the man himself is unfit, yet he states that he is punished by kareth, which proves that the obligation lies upon him. — Said Rabbah: R. Eliezer holds, One may not slaughter [the Passover] and sprinkle [its blood] for him who is unclean through a reptile,

—

69:2

and wherever an individual would be relegated [to the second Passover], in the case of the community they keep [it] in uncleanness, and whatever is [obligatory] in the case of a community is [obligatory] in the case of an individual, and whatever is not [obligatory] in the case of a community is not [obligatory] in the case of an individual. [Hence as for the defect of] uncircumcision, where if the whole community are uncircumcised we say to them, ‘Arise, circumcise yourselves, and sacrifice the Passover, then an individual too, we say to him, ‘Arise, circumcise yourself, and sacrifice the Passover,’ while if he does not circumcise [himself] and [does not] sacrifice he is punished with kareth. But [in the case of] uncleanness, where if the whole community is unclean we do not sprinkle [the water of purification] upon them but they keep [it] in uncleanness, [therefore] an individual too is not culpable. R. Huna son of R. Joshua said to Raba: Yet there is the second Passover, which is not [practised] in the case of a community, yet it is [practised] in the case of an individual? — There it is different, replied he, because the community has [already] sacrificed at the first [Passover]. An objection is raised: You might think that there is no penalty of kareth [for neglecting to offer the Passover] except if he [the delinquent] was clean and was not on a journey afar off; how do we know it of an uncircumcised person and one who was unclean through a reptile and all others who are unclean? Because it is stated, and the man [that is clean etc.]. Now, since he seeks [a verse to teach the inclusion of] him who is unclean through a reptile, he [evidently] holds, One may not slaughter [the Passover sacrifice] and sprinkle [its blood] for him who is unclean through a reptile; for if one may slaughter and sprinkle, why seek [a verse] for him, [seeing that] he is indeed [identical with] a clean person? by the rule stated, a community in like condition is not bound to purify itself but may sacrifice in uncleanness. Again, since the community need not purify itself by sprinkling, an individual is not obliged to either, for an individual has no obligation which is not likewise binding upon the community; consequently, since an individual is not bound to purify himself, he may not do so on the Sabbath. But if the whole community are uncircumcised, it is their duty to circumcise themselves on the eve of Passover, and therefore it is the duty of an individual too, neglect of which entails kareth. Had he, however, held that we do slaughter the Passover for a man who is unclean through a reptile or through a corpse when his seventh day falls on the eve of Passover, then since the individual is not relegated, the community too might not sacrifice in uncleanness but would have to purify itself; and as a corollary, since the community would have to perform haza'ah, it would also be an individual's duty, and in consequence it would be permitted on the Sabbath. This proves that though he is not fit, the obligation is upon him [to make himself fit], and though this is not [so] in the case of a community, yet it is [so] in the case of an individual? — Rather, said Raba: R. Eliezer holds, One may slaughter and sprinkle for a man who is unclean through a reptile, and the same law applies to a man who is unclean through the dead on his seventh day; then for what [purpose] is the haza'ah? for the eating — [yet] the eating of the Passover sacrifice Is not indispensable. R. Adda b. Abba said to Raba, If so, it is found that the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered for those who cannot eat it? ‘For those who cannot eat it’ means for the infirm and the aged, he replied, since they are [physically] unfit; but this one is indeed fit, save that he is not made ready. R. AKIBA STATED A GENERAL RULE etc. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Akiba. And we learned similarly in respect to circumcision. R. Akiba stated a general rule: No labour which can be performed on the eve of the Sabbath overrides the Sabbath; circumcision, which cannot be performed on the eve of the Sabbath, overrides the Sabbath; and Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Akiba. Now [both] are necessary. For if he informed us [this] in connection with, the Passover, [I would say,] it is only there that the necessary adjuncts of the precept do not override the Sabbath, because thirteen covenants were not made over it; but as for circumcision, over which thirteen covenants were made, I would say that they [the adjuncts] override [the Sabbath]. While if he informed us [this of] circumcision, [I would argue],it is only there that the necessary adjuncts of the precept do not override the Sabbath, since there is no kareth; but as for the Passover sacrifice, where there is kareth, I might argue, Let the necessary adjuncts override [the Sabbath]. Thus they are necessary. MISHNAH. WHEN DOES HE BRING A HAGIGAH WITH IT [THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE]? WHEN IT COMES DURING THE WEEK, IN PURITY, AND IN SMALL [PORTIONS]. BUT WHEN IT COMES ON THE SABBATH, IN LARGE [PORTIONS], AND IN UNCLEANNESS, ONE DOES NOT BRING THE HAGIGAH WITH IT. THE HAGIGAH WAS BROUGHT OF FLOCKS, HERDS, LAMBS OR GOATS, OF THE MALES OR THE FEMALES, AND IT IS EATEN TWO DAYS AND ONE NIGHT. GEMARA. What has he taught [previously] that he [now] teaches [about] the hagigah? — He has taught about carrying it [the paschal lamb on his shoulders] and bringing it, which do not override the Sabbath, so he also teaches about the hagigah that it [too] does not override the Sabbath, and he states thus: WHEN DOES ONE BRING A HAGIGAH WITH IT? WHEN IT COMES DURING THE WEEK, IN PURITY, AND IN SMALL [PORTIONS]. R. Ashi said: This proves that the hagigah of the fourteenth

—