פסחים 70 — Soncino English Talmud

¹is not obligatory. For if you should think that it is obligatory, let it come [be sacrificed] on the Sabbath, and let it come [when the Passover sacrifice is divided] in large [portions], and in uncleanness. Nevertheless, what is the reason that it comes [when the paschal lamb is divided] in small portions? — As it was taught: The hagigah which comes with the Passover is eaten first, so that the Passover be eaten after the appetite is satisfied. AND IT IS EATEN FOR TWO DAYS etc. Our Mishnah is not in agreement with the son of Tema. For it was taught: The son of Tema said: The hagigah which comes with the Passover is as the Passover, and it may only be eaten a day and a night, whereas the hagigah of the fifteenth is eaten two days and one night; again, the hagigah of the fourteenth, a man discharges therewith [his duty] on account of rejoicing, but he does not discharge therewith [his duty] on account of hagigah. What is the son of Tema's reason? — As R. Hiyya taught his son, Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast [zebah hag] of the passover be left unto the morning: ‘zebah hag,’ this is the hagigah; ‘the passover’ is what it implies, and the Divine Law saith, ‘it shall not be kept overnight’. The Scholars asked: According to the son of Tema, is it [the hagigah] eaten roast or is it not eaten roast? [Do we say,] When the Divine Law compared it to the Passover it was in respect of keeping it overnight, but not in respect of roast; or perhaps there is no difference? — Come and hear: On this night all [must be eaten] roast; and R. Hisda said: These are the words of the son of Tema. This proves it. The Scholars asked: According to the son of Tema, does it [the hagigah] come from the herd or does it not come from the herd; does it come from females or does it not come from females; does it come a two-year old, or does it not come a two-year old? [Do we say,] when the Divine Law compared it to the Passover it was in the matter of eating, but not in respect of all [other] things; or perhaps there is no difference? — Come and hear: The hagigah which comes with the Passover is as the Passover: it comes from the flock, but it does not come from the herd; it comes from the males but it does not come from the females; it comes a year old, but it does not come a two-year old, and it may be eaten only a day and a night, and it may be eaten only roast, and it may be eaten only by those who have registered for it. [Now,] whom do you know to hold this view? The son of Tema. This proves that we require everything. This proves it. The Scholars asked: According to the son of Tema, is it subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone, or is it not subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone? [Do we say,] though the Divine Law assimilated it to the Passover, yet the Writ saith, ‘[neither shall ye break a bone] thereof,’ [implying] ‘thereof,’ but not of the hagigah;’ or perhaps, this ‘thereof’ comes [to teach], of a fit [sacrifice], but not of an unfit one? — Come and hear: If a [slaughtering] knife is found on the fourteenth, one may slaughter with it immediately; [if it is found] on the thirteenth he must repeat the tebillah. [If he finds] a chopper. whether on the one or on the other, he must repeat the tebillah. Who [is the authority for this]? Shall we say the Rabbis? wherein does a [slaughtering] knife differ, that we assume that it had been immersed; because it is fit for [slaughtering] the Passover? Then a chopper too, surely it is fit for [breaking the bones of] the hagigah ? Hence it must be [the view] of the son of Tema, which proves that it is subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone! — No: in truth [it is the view of] the Rabbis, and [this was taught] e.g., when it [the Passover] comes on the Sabbath. But since the second clause teaches, If the fourteenth occurred on the Sabbath, he may slaughter with it immediately; and [likewise if he finds it] on the fifteenth, he may slaughter with it immediately; if a chopper is found tied to a knife, it is as the knife, it follows that the first clause does not treat of the Sabbath? — Rather it means that it [the Passover] readiness for slaughtering the Passover on the fourteenth. We disregard the possibility that the owner may have lost it some time ago, for Jerusalem was thronged at Passover and it could not have lain long without being discovered. came^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ᵃnote:V. p. 356, n. 4.
^ᵇnote:V. note on Mishnah on these two sacrifices. Now the hagigah of the fourteenth is a voluntary sacrifice (supra), and it is a general rule that an animal already dedicated for such cannot be used for all obligatory sacrifice, except in the case of the peace-offering of rejoicing. v. infra, 71a. Hence if the hagigah dedicated for the fourteenth is not killed on that day, it can be utilized the next day as the peace-offering of rejoicing but not as the obligatory hagigah of the fifteenth
^ᶜnote:That the hagigah may be eaten only a day and a night.
^ᵈnote:Ex. XXXIV, 25.
^ᵉnote:Referring to the hagigah too.
^ᶠnote:I.e., must it be eaten roast or not? Similarly the problems which follow.
^ᵍnote:V. infra 116a.
^ʰnote:That the hagigah too must be roast.
^ⁱnote:V. Ex. XII, 5: your lamb (sc. the Passover) shall be . . . a male of the first year; ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats. Does the same apply to the hagigah or not?
^ʲnote:I.e., in the conditions under which it must be eaten.
^ᵏnote:Lit., ‘hear’.
^ˡnote:That it may be eaten only a day and a night.
^ᵐnote:I.e., it must be like the passover in all respects.
^ⁿnote:v. Ex. XII, 46: neither shall ye break a bone thereof (sc. the Passover).
^ᵒnote:I.e., there is no interdict in its case.
^ᵖnote:If the Passover is unfit its bones may be broken; v. infra 83a.
^ᵠnote:Without immersing it. For if it were unclean its owner would have immersed it on the thirteenth, so that it should be clean at sunset (v. Num. XIX, 14-19; shall be clean at even applies to utensils too), in
^ʳnote:I.e., he must immerse it, though even if it was unclean its owner may already have done so.
^ˢnote:A large knife used for cutting up meat and breaking the bones, but not as a rule for slaughtering.
^ᵗnote:Viz., the thirteenth or the fourteenth.
^ᵘnote:For since the bones of the Passover sacrifice must not be broken, even if it was unclean its owner may not have troubled to immerse it on the thirteenth but waited for the fourteenth, to have it in readiness for the use of breaking bones on the following day, to break the bones of the hagigah of the fifteenth or of the peace-offering of rejoicing.
^ᵛnote:Which implies that there is no breaking of bones on Passover eve.
^ʷnote:Who do not assimilate the hagigah of the fourteenth to the paschal sacrifice, and consequently hold that the bones of the former may be broken.
^ˣnote:On the day before by the owner so that he who finds it need not immerse it.
^ʸnote:Why then should the finder repeat the immersion?
^ᶻnote:So that a hagigah cannot be brought at all. As there would be no need for the chopper, the owner, it is to be assumed, did not immerse it.
^ᵃᵃnote:Sc. even with the chopper, if he has no knife. For if it were unclean its owner would have performed tebillah on Friday, to use it on Sunday (v. n. 4). Since tebillah is forbidden on the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵇnote:For the same reason that tebillah must already have been performed.
^ᵃᶜnote:And even if found on the fourteenth on a weekday he may slaughter with it immediately, for since they are tied together they must both have received tebillah at the same time.
^ᵃᵈnote:Which requires a second immersion for either.

²in large [portions]. How can we know? — Rather it means that it came in uncleanness. Yet after all, how could they know? — The nasi had died. When did the nasi die? Shall we say that he died on the thirteenth, then why was it necessary for the owner to perform tebillah for the knife? Again, if he died on the fourteenth, wherein does the knife differ, that [we say] he [its owner] gave it tebillah, and wherein does the chopper differ, that [we assume] he did not give it tebillah? — This arises only when the nasi was in a dying condition on the thirteenth. As for the knife, [concerning] which [there is] one doubt, he would give it tebillah [on the thirteenth]; the chopper, [concerning] which [there are] two doubts, he would not give it tebillah. It was taught: Judah the son of Durtai separated himself [from the Sages], he and his son Durtai, and went and dwelt in the South. ‘[For,]’ said he, ‘if Elijah should come and say to Israel, "why did you not sacrifice the hagigah on the Sabbath?" what can they answer him? I am astonished at the two greatest men of our generation. Shemaiah and Abtalyon, who are great Sages and great interpreters [of the Torah], yet they have not told Israel, The hagigah overrides the Sabbath. Rab said, What is the reason of the son of Durtai? Because it is written, And thou shalt sacrifice the passover-offering unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd: yet surely the Passover offering is only from lambs or goats? But ‘flock’ refers to the Passover offering, [while] ‘herd’ refers to the hagigah, and the Divine Law saith, ‘And thou shalt sacrifice the passover-offering’. Said R. Ashi: And are we to arise and explain the reason of schismatics? But the verse comes for [the exegesis] of R. Nahman. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: How do we know that the left-over of the paschal offering is brought as a peace-offering? Because it is said, ‘and thou shalt sacrifice the passover-offering unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and of the herd’. Now, does then the Passover offering come from the herd: surely the Passover offering comes only from lambs or from goats? But [it means] the left-over of the paschal offering is to be [utilized] for something which comes from the flock and from the herd. Now according to the Rabbis, what is the reason that it [the hagigah] does not override the Sabbath, seeing that it is certainly a public sacrifice? — Said R. Illa'a on the authority of R. Judah b. Safra: Scripture saith, And ye shall keep it a feast [hag] unto the Lord seven days in the year. ‘Seven!’ but there were eight? Hence from here [we learn that] the hagigah does not override the Sabbath. When Rabin came, he said: I stated before my teachers, Sometimes you can only find six, e.g., if the first day of the Feast [of Tabernacles] fell on the Sabbath? — Said Abaye: That Abin the childless should say such a thing! Eight is altogether impossible. [while] seven are found in most years. ‘Ulla said in R. Eleazar's name: Peace-offerings which a man slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, he does not discharge therewith [his duty] either on account of rejoicing or on account of hagigah. ‘On account of rejoicing.’ because it is written, and thou shalt sacrifice [peace-offerings . . .] and thou shalt rejoice; we require the slaughtering^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ

^ᵃᵉnote:In which case a hagigah does not accompany it.
^ᵃᶠnote:So MS.M. Cur. edd. ‘they know’ that a small number had registered for the Passover for which the unknown owner of this chopper was registered. Aliter: ‘how could they (the owners) know on the thirteenth that only a small number would register for the Passover, so that it would not be necessary to have the chopper immersed in readiness?’ V. Rashi.
^ᵃᵍnote:Hence a hagigah was possible.
^ᵃʰnote:How could the owner know on the thirteenth that on the morrow the majority of the community would be unclean?
^ᵃⁱnote:And the whole community would have to take part in his funeral, which would defile them.
^ᵃʲnote:When the vessels are generally taken for tebillah.
^ᵃᵏnote:Seeing that the Passover is brought in uncleanness. Hence the finder should not be permitted to assume that it is clean, as he might then slaughter the Festival peace-offerings with it, which is forbidden. [Even when the Passover comes in uncleanness, the Festival sacrifices on the following or subsequent days must be brought in cleanness:]
^ᵃˡnote:He would not have known on the thirteenth, and therefore just as he assumed that a clean knife was necessary for slaughtering the Passover, so he would also assume that a clean chopper would be required for breaking the bones of the hagigah which would accompany it.
^ᵃᵐnote:Viz., whether the nasi would die on the fourteenth or not.
^ᵃⁿnote:(i) Whether the nasi would die; and (ii) whether a hagigah would be brought, for even if he did not die, only a few people might register for that particular paschal offering, in which case it would not be required.
^ᵃᵒnote:Far from Jerusalem, so that he could not be in Jerusalem on Passover and therefore avoid the obligation of bringing a hagigah. He held that it was obligatory even if only a small number registered for the paschal offering, and even on the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., ‘celebrate’.
^ᵃᵠnote:[Judah b. Durtai is held to have belonged to the Sadducean party, and his son is identified with Dortos (v. Josephus, Antiquities XX, 6, 2) who had been captured by Quadratus in Lydda and executed for having incited the Jews in rebellion against the Romans, v. Derenbourg, Essai, p. 187 note.]
^ᵃʳnote:Deut. XVI, 2.
^ᵃˢnote:I.e., both are called by the same name, and therefore the same law applies to both.
^ᵃᵗnote:Though of course the Talmud abounds in controversies, even of one against many, and the views of the minorities too have to be explained, in actual practice the minority always fell in with the final decision of the majority. Hence R. Judah the son of Durtai was unjustified in separating himself, and we have no need to study his view; v. Halevi, Doroth I, 5, pp. 206f. — Or perhaps R. Ashi merely meant that since the interpretation of this verse is according to a minority view, it behoves us to know how the verse is interpreted on the view of the Sages. This appears to be the explanation given by R. Han., whose text differs slightly.
^ᵃᵘnote:E.g., if an animal dedicated for a Passover sacrifice was lost, whereupon its owners registered for another animal, and then it was found after the second was sacrificed. Or again, if a certain sum of money was dedicated to buy a paschal lamb, but it was not all expended; then too the surplus must be used for a peace-offering.
^ᵃᵛnote:Sc. a peace-offering.
^ᵃʷnote:Lev. XXIII, 41. This treats of Tabernacles, which was observed for eight days, and the verse teaches that a hagigah was to be brought (v. supra p. 356, n. 4).
^ᵃˣnote:For the hagigah, if not brought on the first day of the Festival, could be brought on any other day.
^ᵃʸnote:And since one of the eight days must be the Sabbath, there are actually only seven days when it can be brought.
^ᵃᶻnote:From Palestine to Babylonia.
^ᵇᵃnote:Why is this too not intimated in Scripture?
^ᵇᵇnote:Therefore there is no need for Scripture to intimate that there may only be six,
^ᵇᶜnote:V. note on Mishnah.
^ᵇᵈnote:Deut. XXVII, 7.