פסחים 71 — Soncino English Talmud

¹at the time of rejoicing, which is absent [here]. ‘On account of hagigah’: this is an obligatory sacrifice, and every obligatory sacrifice comes from nought but hullin. Shall we say that [the following] supports him? [For it was taught]; And thou shalt be altogether [ak] joyful: this is to include the night of the last day of the Festival for rejoicing. You say, the night of the last day of the Festival; yet perhaps it is not so, but the night of the first day of the Festival? Therefore ‘ak’ is stated, dividing it. Now what is the reason? Is it not because he has nought wherewith to rejoice! — No: [it is] as it states the reason: Why do you prefer to include the night of the last day of the Festival and to exclude the night of the first day of the Festival? I include the night of the last day of the Festival, because there is rejoicing before it, while I exclude the night of the first day of the Festival, seeing that there is no rejoicing before it. R. Joseph raised an objection: The hagigah of the fourteenth, one discharges with it [his duty] on account of rejoicing. but one does not discharge with it [his duty] on account of hagigah. [Yet] why so? Surely we require slaughtering to be at the time of rejoicing, which is lacking [here]? — Said R. Idi b. Abin: It is meant where he delayed and slaughtered it [on the fifteenth]. R. Ashi observed: This too is logical, for if you should not say thus, who taught this teaching? The son of Tema? But [according to] the son of Tema, surely he has disqualified it through keeping it overnight! Raba objected: [The reciting of] hallel and rejoicing are [observed] eight [days]. Now if you say [that] we require the slaughtering at the time of rejoicing, then there are many occasions when only seven are found, e.g.. if the first day of the Festival falls on the Sabbath? Said R. Huna son of Rab Judah: He rejoices with the he-goats of the Festivals. Said Raba: Of this there are two refutations: firstly, because the he-goats of the Festivals can be eaten raw [on the Sabbath], but cannot be eaten roast, and there is no rejoicing in [eating] raw [meat]; moreover, the Priests eat it; and wherewith do the Israelites rejoice? Rather, said R. Papa: He rejoices with clean garments and old wine. When Rabin came, he said in R. Eleazar's name: Peace-offerings which one slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, he discharges therewith [his duty] on account of rejoicing, but he cannot discharge therewith [his duty] on account of hagigah. ‘He discharges [his duty] on account of rejoicing,’ [for] we do not require the slaughtering at the time of rejoicing. ‘But not on account of hagigah’; this is an obligatory [sacrifice], and every obligatory [sacrifice] comes from nought but hullin. An objection is raised: ‘And thou shalt be altogether’ [ak] joyful:’ this is to include the night of the last day of the Festival for rejoicing. You say, to include the light of the last day of the Festival; yet perhaps it is not so, but it is to include the night of the first day of the Festival? Therefore ‘ak’ is stated, dividing it. Now what is the reason? Is it not because he has no light wherewith to rejoice! — No: [it is] as it was taught. Why do you prefer to include the night of the last day of the Festival and to exclude the night of the first day of the Festival? I include the night of the last day of the Festival, because there is rejoicing before it; while I exclude the night of the first day of the Festival, because there is no rejoicing before it. R. Kahana said: How do we know that the emurim of the hagigah of the fifteenth are disqualified through being kept overnight? Because it is said, neither shall the fat of My feast [haggi] remain all night until morning; and in proximity thereto ‘the first’ [is stated], to intimate that this ‘morning’ means the first morning. To this R. Joseph demurred: [Thus] the reason is that ‘first is written, but if ‘first’ were not written I would say, what does ‘morning’ mean? the second morning; [but] is there a case where the flesh is disqualified from the evening, whereas the emurim [are fit] until morning? Said Abaye to him, Yet why not? Surely there is the paschal offering according to R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah, where the flesh is disqualified from midnight, whereas the emurim [are fit] until morning? — Said Raba, This is R. Joseph's difficulty: is there a case where the Tanna does not require ‘first’ in respect of the flesh, whereas R. Kahana requires ‘first’ in respect of the emurim? What is this [allusion]? — For it was taught: Neither shall any of the flesh which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning: 31^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^ᵃᵉ

^ᵃnote:Viz,, on the Festival itself.
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘a matter of an obligation’.
^ᶜnote:V, p. 357. n. 3.
^ᵈnote:Deut. XVI, 15. This is superfluous, since v. 14 states, And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast. Hence it is intended as an extension.
^ᵉnote:I.e., the night of the eighth day. Rashi: It cannot mean the eighth day itself, since ‘seven’ is twice specified (in v. 13 and v. 15). Tosaf.: ‘night’ is not meant particularly. as the same applies to the day. By ‘rejoicing’ is meant the eating of the peace-offering of rejoicing.
^ᶠnote:Perhaps one must eat of the peace-offering then? And since sacrifices cannot be slaughtered at night, it would he necessary to slaughter it on the eve of the Festival.
^ᵍnote:Ak is always interpreted as a limitation; hence it excludes the first night.
^ʰnote:That you include the last night and exclude the first; why not reverse it?
^ⁱnote:Since the sacrifice is not to be offered until the following morning. Thus this supports ‘Ulla's statement that the peace-offering of rejoicing cannot be offered on the eve of the Festival.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘what (reason) do you see?’
^ᵏnote:It is more logical to assume that a continuation of rejoicing already begun is included than that the rejoicing must commence before the time actually prescribed.
^ˡnote:V. supra 70a for notes.
^ᵐnote:Why should he discharge with it his duty on account of rejoicing?
^ⁿnote:He understood it to mean that it was actually slaughtered on the fourteenth.
^ᵒnote:As stated supra 70a.
^ᵖnote:Since he holds that the hagigah of the fourteenth may be eaten only a day and a night. I.e., not after the night of the fifteenth, like the Passover. Hence he must have slaughtered it on the fifteenth.
^ᵠnote:‘Praise’ — i.e., Ps. CXIII-CXVIII, which are recited on every Festival.
^ʳnote:With the peace-offerings of rejoicing.
^ˢnote:The reference is to the Feast of Tabernacles.
^ᵗnote:When the peace-offering may not be slaughtered.
^ᵘnote:V. Num. XXVIII, 22, 30; XXIX, 16 et seq. These were public sacrifices, and therefore slaughtered even on the Sabbath.
^ᵛnote:Though they are slaughtered on the Sabbath, their roasting or cooking does not override the Sabbath.
^ʷnote:V. Glos.
^ˣnote:Though its flesh may be eaten the whole of the following day too.
^ʸnote:Ex. XXIII, 18; ‘haggi’ refers to the hagigah.
^ᶻnote:,hatr The first (E.V. ‘choicest’) of the fruits etc. Here, however, it is read with ‘morning’, as explained in the text.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., the fat is not to remain until the first morning after the offering is sacrificed.
^ᵃᵇnote:Surely not, for the flesh may be eaten only on the day it is slaughtered and on the following, but not the night after it!
^ᵃᶜnote:V. infra 120b.
^ᵃᵈnote:The sanctity of emurim, which are burnt on the altar, is naturally greater than that of the flesh, which is eaten, and accordingly the former becomes unfit more easily than the latter. Yet we see anon that the Tanna assumes that morning’ written in connection with the flesh must mean the first morning. without having recourse to ,hatr ‘first’; why then does R. Kahana require the proximity of ,hatr ‘first’ in order to establish that ‘morning’ written in connection with the emurim means the first morning?
^ᵃᵉnote:Deut. XVI, 4.

²this teaches concerning the hagigah of the fourteenth, that it may be eaten two days and one night. Yet perhaps it is not so, but [only] one day and one night? When it [Scripture] says, ‘the first day,’ the second morning is meant. Yet perhaps it is not so, but the first morning [is meant], and to what do I relate [the case of] the hagigah which may be eaten two days and one night? [To all other hagigoth] excepting this? When [Scripture] says thereof, But if [the sacrifice of his offering be] a vow, or a freewill-offering, it teaches concerning the hagigah of the fourteenth that it may be eaten for two days and one night. The Master said: ‘Yet perhaps it is not so, but the first morning [is meant]’. But you have [already] said, ‘When it [Scripture] says. "the first day" the second morning is meant’? — This is what he means: Yet perhaps it is not so, but the Writ speaks of two hagigoth, one the hagigah of the fourteenth, and one the hagigah of the fifteenth, and the former [must not remain] until its morning, while the latter [must not remain] until its morning? Then he argues, as to our general ruling [that there is] a hagigah which is eaten two days and one night. if so, in which [case does] ‘if, a vow or a freewill-offering’ [hold good]? if the hagigah of the fourteenth, surely a day and a night is written in connection therewith; if the hagigah of the fifteenth, surely a day and a night is written in connection therewith? But this is in respect of the hagigah of the fifteenth, while the whole of the other verse is in respect of the hagigah of the fourteenth [only,] [and thus] it teaches concerning the hagigah of the fourteenth that it may be eaten two days and one night. Thus the reason is that ‘on the first day until the morning’ is written, so that what does ‘morning’ mean? the second morning; hence wherever ‘morning’ is written without qualification, it means the first morning, even if ‘first’ is not written in connection with it. MISHNAH. IF THE PASSOVER WAS SLAUGHTERED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE ON THE SABBATH, HE [THE SLAUGHTERER] IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING ON ITS ACCOUNT. WHILE ALL OTHER SACRIFICES WHICH HE SLAUGHTERED AS A PASSOVER, IF THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE, HE IS CULPABLE; WHILE IF THEY ARE ELIGIBLE, — R. ELIEZER RULES HIM LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, WHILE R. JOSHUA RULES HIM NOT CULPABLE, SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM: IF THE PASSOVER, WHICH IS PERMITTED FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE,YET WHEN HE CHANGES ITS PURPOSE HE IS CULPABLE; THEN [OTHER] SACRIFICES, WHICH ARE FORBIDDEN [EVEN] FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE, IF HE CHANGES THEIR PURPOSE IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT HE IS CULPABLE! R. JOSHUA ANSWERED HIM, NOT SO. IF YOU SAY [THUS] OF THE PASSOVER, [HE IS CULPABLE] BECAUSE HE CHANGED IT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS FORBIDDEN; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF [OTHER] SACRIFICES, WHERE HE CHANGED THEM FOR SOMETHING THAT IS PERMITTED? SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM, LET THE PUBLIC SACRIFICES PROVE IT, WHICH ARE PERMITTED FOR THEIR OWN SAKE, YET HE WHO SLAUGHTERS [OTHER SACRIFICES] IN THEIR NAME IS CULPABLE. R. JOSHUA ANSWERED HIM: NOT SO. IF YOU SAY [THUS] OF PUBLIC SACRIFICES, [THAT IS] BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LIMIT; Will YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF THE PASSOVER, WHICH HAS NO LIMIT? R. MEIR SAID: HE TOO WHO SLAUGHTERS [OTHER SACRIFICES] IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC SACRIFICE IS NOT LIABLE. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS, OR FOR THOSE WHO WERE NOT REGISTERED , FOR UNCIRCUMCISED OR FOR UNCLEAN [PERSONS], HE IS CULPABLE; [IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT] FOR ITS EATERS AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS, FOR THOSE WHO ARE REGISTERED FOR IT AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED FOR IT, FOR CIRCUMCISED AND FOR UNCIRCUMCISED, FOR UNCLEAN AND FOR CLEAN [PERSONS], HE IS NOT LIABLE. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT, AND IT WAS FOUND TO POSSESS A BLEMISH, HE IS LIABLE. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TEREFAH INTERNALLY, HE IS NOT LIABLE. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT, AND [THEN] IT BECAME KNOWN THAT ITS OWNERS HAD WITHDRAWN THEIR HANDS FROM IT, OR THAT THEY HAD DIED, OR THAT THEY HAD BECOME UNCLEAN, HE IS NOT CULPABLE, BECAUSE HE SLAUGHTERED WITH PERMISSION.36^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^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ

^ᵃᶠnote:Understanding ‘morning’ to refer to the sixteenth of Nisan.
^ᵃᵍnote:Relating ‘morning’ to the fifteenth.
^ᵃʰnote:After it is slaughtered, i.e., the morning of the sixteenth.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘said’. For ‘the first day’ implies that it may be eaten the whole of the first day after it is slaughtered.
^ᵃʲnote:Lit., ‘how do I fulfil?’
^ᵃᵏnote:That there are such hagigoth (pl. hagigah) is deduced anon.
^ᵃˡnote:Lev. VII, 16.
^ᵃᵐnote:The verse continues: it shall be eaten on the day he offereth his sacrifice and on the morrow. Thus two days are allotted, which ‘if a vow’ is regarded as superfluous, and therefore is interpreted as an extension to include the present case.
^ᵃⁿnote:The Talmud now proceeds to elucidate this Baraitha leading up to the explanation of R. Joseph's argument.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e.,the former must not remain until the morning of the fifteenth, while the latter must not remain until the morning of the sixteenth. Then the verse would be translated thus: ‘neither shall any of the flesh . . . which thou sacrificest . . . at even’ — sc. of the hagigah of the fourteenth — ‘remain all night’, which naturally means until the morning of the fifteenth; while that ‘which thou sacrificest the first day’, i.e., on the fifteenth, must not remain . . . until the morning’ viz., of the sixteenth.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., ‘what is established to us’.
^ᵃᵠnote:Rashi: but as to our principle that there is a hagigah apart from this which may be eaten etc. Thus a different meaning is now given to the phrase ‘apart from this’.
^ᵃʳnote:On the present hypothesis.
^ᵃˢnote:Because of ‘the first day’.
^ᵃᵗnote:,hat.
^ᵃᵘnote:This is the point of R. Joseph's objection as explained by Raba,
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit., ‘not for its name’ — e.g., as a peace-offering.
^ᵃʷnote:For having desecrated the Sabbath unintentionally, as he thought that just as it is permitted for its own purposes3 it is permitted for another purpose.
^ᵃˣnote:I.e., the animals had been consecrated for other sacrifices.
^ᵃʸnote:For a Passover, e.g., if they are females or two-years old (v. Ex. XII, 5).
^ᵃᶻnote:R. Eleazar holds that even when a man performs a forbidden action while thinking that he is doing a religious deed, he is culpable. R. Joshua, however maintains that if the action actually performed is a religious deed, even a slight one, he is not liable, as he is regarded not as having unwittingly desecrated the Sabbath, but as having erred in a religious matter. This applies to the present case, for he did offer a sacrifice, and R. Joshua rules supra 62b that all sacrifices, including the Passover, even if slaughtered for a different purpose, are nevertheless fit. But in the first case he definitely did not perform a religious action, since all know that a female etc. is not eligible for a Passover, and therefore both agree that he is culpable.
^ᵇᵃnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᵇᵇnote:I.e., he slaughtered them as a Passover, which is actually permitted.
^ᵇᶜnote:Rashi: the sacrifices which are prescribed (amure fr. amur).
^ᵇᵈnote:The daily burnt-offering and the additional offerings of Sabbaths and Festivals override the Sabbath.
^ᵇᵉnote:Only a few animals are slaughtered as public sacrifices, and it is easy to avoid the mistake. Therefore when a man slaughters an animal consecrated for a different purpose as a public sacrifice, he cannot be regarded as having erred in a religious act but as one who unwittingly desecrated the Sabbath.
^ᵇᶠnote:An enormous number of animals were slaughtered (cf. supra 64b) — seemingly limitless. Hence his error is pardonable, and he is regarded as having erred in a religious duty.
^ᵇᵍnote:The Passover offering, on the Sabbath.
^ᵇʰnote:Such who could not eat of it; e.g.. sick or old people.
^ᵇⁱnote:Lit., ‘numbered’,
^ᵇʲnote:In the former case the offering is unfit; hence his act constitutes desecration of the Sabbath; but in the latter case the offering is valid, v. supra 61a.
^ᵇᵏnote:V. Glos.
^ᵇˡnote:Lit., ‘in a secret part’.
^ᵇᵐnote:A sin-offering is incurred only when a person intends doing what he does, but is unaware that in the circumstances it is forbidden; he is then technically called shogeg, an unwitting offender, But if he did not intend doing it at all, he is called anus, the victim of an unforeseen accident, and is not liable. Now an external examination of the animal would have revealed its blemish; his neglect to do this renders him shogeg, as though he had known that it was blemished, but thought it permitted. But he could not have known here that it was terefah; therefore he is regarded as anus, and is not culpable.
^ᵇⁿnote:I.e. , they had re-registered for a different animal before this was slaughtered.
^ᵇᵒnote:He could not have known of this, and therefore he too is regarded as anus.