פסחים 72:2 — Soncino English Talmud

so that the Sabbath does not stand to be overridden whereas in the second clause the Sabbath stands to be overridden by him; [thus] here, [too], surely the Sabbath stands to be overridden in respect of a public sacrifice. R. Ashi said to R. Kahana: But here too [in the first clause] the Sabbath stands to be overidden in connection with infants in general? Nevertheless it was not given [to be overridden] in connection with this man, he answered him. 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. Which Tanna draws a distinction between eligible and not eligible? It is R. Simeon. For it was taught: The sacrifices which are eligible [for a Passover] and the sacrifices which are not eligible are as one; and similarly he who slaughters for the sake of public sacrifices is not liable; this is R. Meir's view. R. Simeon said: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ about those which are not eligible, [agreeing] that he is liable. About what do they differ? About those which are eligible. R. Eliezer ruling him liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua declares him not liable. R. Bibi said in R. Eleazar's name: R. Meir declared him not liable even [if it was] a calf of a peace-offering sacrifice which he slaughtered in the name of a Passover-offering. Said R. Zera to R. Bibi, But R. Johanan said: R. Meir admitted [that he is liable] in the case of blemished [animals]? — He is not pre-occupied with blemished animals [at all], whereas he is occupied with this [calf], he answered him. Raba asked R. Nahman: What is R. Meir's opinion [where a man slaughters] hullin for the sake of a Passover? Said he to him: R. Meir declared him not liable even [if he slaughtered] hullin for the sake of a Passover. But R. Johanan said: R. Meir admitted [that he is liable] in the case of blemished [animals]? Blemished [animals] cannot be confused [for these] these can be confused, Is then R. Meir's reason because they can be confused or they cannot be confused; surely R. Bibi said in R. Eleazar's name, R. Meir declared him exempt even [if it was] a calf of a peace-offering sacrifice which he slaughtered in the name of a Passover-offering, which proves that R. Meir's reason is because he is pre-occupied with the [sacrificing of an animal]. — Said he to him, If he is pre-occupied [he is not liable] even if it cannot be confused; if it can be confused [he is not liable] even if he is not pre-occupied [with sacrificing], which excludes blemished [animals], which can neither be confused nor is he indeed pre-occupied [with the sacrificing of them]. R. Zera and R. Samuel b. Isaac were sitting in the hall of R. Samuel b. Isaac[‘s house], and they sat and said: R. Simeon b. Lakish said: If a man mistook a spit of nothar for a spit of [ordinary] roast meat and he ate it, he is liable. While R. Johanan said: If a man had intercourse with his wife, a niddah, he is liable; if he had intercourse with his yebamah, a niddah, he is not liable. Some say, In the former case he is all the more liable, seeing that he did not perform a religious duty [at all]. Others say, In the former case he would not be liable. What is the reason? It is only there because he should have asked; but here, that he could not have asked, [he is] not [liable]. Now [according to] R. Johanan, wherein does his yebamah differ? Because he performed a religious duty! [Then in the case of] his wife too he performed a religious duty. — It refers to his wife when she is pregnant. But there is the pleasure of the periodical visit? — It was not at the time of her periodical visit. But Raba said: A man is bound to please his wife with a good deed? — It was near her [menstruation] date, If so, the same [applies to] his yebamah? — he is bashful towards his yebamah, [but] he is not bashful towards his wife. Now R. Johanan, according to whom [does he give his ruling]? Shall we say, according to R. Jose, for we learned, R. Jose said: If the first festival-day of the Feast fell on the Sabbath, and one forgot [himself] and carried out the palm-branch into the street, he is not liable [to a sin-offering], because he carried it out with permission. But perhaps it is different there, because his time is urgent? Again, if [it is] in accordance with R. Joshua's [ruling] on infants, there too his time is urgent? — Rather, it is in accordance with R. Joshua's [ruling] on terumah. For we learned: If he [a priest] was eating terumah and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or of a haluzah, R. Eliezer holds him liable for the principal plus a fifth, while R. Joshua exempts [him]. Perhaps [however] this is as R. Bibi b. Abaye. for R. Bibi b. Abaye said: This refers to terumah on Passover eve, since its time is urgent? Alternatively, terumah is different, as it is designated ‘abodah, and the Divine Law declared ‘abodah valid, For we learned: If he was standing and offering [sacrifices] and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or of a haluzah, all the sacrifices which he offered on the altar are invalid; but R. Joshua declares them valid. Now we said, what is R. Joshua's reason? Because it is written, Bless, Lord, his substance [helo] and accept the work of his hands. Now where is terumah designated ‘abodah? For it was taught: It once happened that R. Tarfon had not attended the Beth Hamidrash the previous evening. The [following] morning R. Gamaliel met him and said to him ‘Why did you not attend the Beth Hamidrash last night?’ ‘I performed an ‘abodah,’ replied he. ‘All your words are nought but mysteries.’ he retorted, ‘for whence have we ‘abodah nowadays?’ Said he to him, ‘Behold, it is said,^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^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ

^ᵃnote:And he had not yet discovered his mistake when he came to perform circumcision on the Sabbath. Thus, though he thought that he was occupied with a religious duty, and did in fact perform one, he is nevertheless liable, because the Sabbath did not stand to be violated by him, since there was no infant left for whom the Sabbath must be violated.
^ᵇnote:Hence he erred in the matter of a religious duty, and R. Meir holds that such is not liable even if he did not eventually perform a religious duty at all. Thus here too, if he slaughters a private sacrifice as a public sacrifice, the Sabbath did stand to be overridden in respect of a public sacrifice, and even if it had actually been slaughtered already the error is excusable, and he is not culpable.
^ᶜnote:As explained in last note.
^ᵈnote:Though I might think that it is impossible to confuse these two.
^ᵉnote:And he assumes that the two cases are alike, since in both an error should be impossible.
^ᶠnote:Since he never dedicated them as sacrifices.
^ᵍnote:Having set them aside for an offering, his mind was pre-occupied with them and he might have erred in offering them for another purpose.
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘what (says) he’?
^ⁱnote:On the Sabbath. No animal may be slaughtered as a sacrifice unless it is first consecrated.
^ʲnote:A man cannot err in respect of blemished animals, whereas he can forget that an animal has not been consecrated.
^ᵏnote:Though these too cannot be confused.
^ˡnote:But he is not occupied in sacrificing hullin.
^ᵐnote:V. Glos.
^ⁿnote:Lit., ‘a spit of nothar was exchanged to him for a spit roast’.
^ᵒnote:To a sin-offering, which the unwitting consumption of nothar involves. The roast meat was that of a sacrifice, while the eating of sacrifices is a religious duty, as it is written, and they shall eat those wherewith atonement was made (Ex. XXIX, 33). Thus he rules that he is liable even where he erred in thinking that he was fulfilling a religious duty.
^ᵖnote:As explained below, the first case means immediately prior to her menstruation period, so that he did not fulfil a religious duty. But in the latter case he fulfils a religious duty (v. Deut. XXV, 5).
^ᵠnote:Viz., that dealt with by R. Simeon b. Lakish.
^ʳnote:Whereas he did perform a religious duty by rendering to his wife her conjugal rights.
^ˢnote:Viz., where he cohabited with his wife, that he is liable.
^ᵗnote:There was none to ask about the spit.
^ᵘnote:Viz., that of procreation, which is enjoined in Gen. I, 28: be fruitful, and multiply.
^ᵛnote:V. Keth. 61b,
^ʷnote:Sc. intercourse, even at other times too.
^ˣnote:When one must hold aloof from his wife.
^ʸnote:Neither in her case is there any religious obligation when her menstruation date is near?
^ᶻnote:Therefore he could not ask her.
^ᵃᵃnote:‘Feast’ (hag) without a further determinant always means the Feast of Tabernacles.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. Lev, XXIII, 40.
^ᵃᶜnote:Carrying from private into public ground constitutes a forbidden labour on the Sabbath; v. Shab.7 2a, 73a.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., though his action is forbidden, nevertheless it was done as a religious duty. Thus this is similar to the case dealt with by R. Johanan.
^ᵃᵉnote:He must do it within a fixed period; hence his anxiety not to miss that period excuses his forgetfulness.
^ᵃᶠnote:V. supra 72a.
^ᵃᵍnote:V. Glos. — whom a priest may not marry (Lev. XXI,7- a haluzah is forbidden by Rabbinical law only); the issue of such a union is hallal (profaned) who ranks as a zar (lay Israelite) and must not eat terumah under the same penalties as a zar.
^ᵃʰnote:Which a zar who eats terumah unwittingly must pay. v. Lev, XXII, 14.
^ᵃⁱnote:Because he erred in thinking that he was performing a religious duty; v. p. 374, n. 3; and the same applies to terumah.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., it was terumah of leaven and so he was in a hurry to consume it (R. Han.).
^ᵃᵏnote:‘Abodah, lit., ‘service’, means the sacrificial service; it is now stated that the eating of terumah is likewise ‘abodah.
^ᵃˡnote:When performed by a hallal, though he is not eligible to do it in the first place. Hence though he may not eat terumah, he is nevertheless not liable if he does eat it.
^ᵃᵐnote:Deut, XXXIII, 11. The verse refers to priests, and helo (E.V.. substance) is derived here from hullin (non-sacred, profane); thus it is translated, Bless . . . (even) him who is profaned (hallal) and accept etc., i.e., let his service be valid.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lit., ‘words of astonishment’.
^ᵃᵒnote:After the destruction of the Temple.