Pesachim

so that the Sabbath does not stand to be overridden1 whereas in the second clause the Sabbath stands to be overridden by him;2 [thus] here, [too], surely the Sabbath stands to be overridden in respect of a public sacrifice.3 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.4 Said R. Zera to R. Bibi, But R. Johanan said: R. Meir admitted [that he is liable] in the case of blemished [animals]?5 — He is not pre-occupied with blemished animals [at all],6 whereas he is occupied with this [calf],7 he answered him. Raba asked R. Nahman: What is R. Meir's opinion8 [where a man slaughters] hullin for the sake of a Passover?9 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,10 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,11 which proves that R. Meir's reason is because he is pre-occupied with the [sacrificing of an animal].12 — 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 nothar13 for a spit of [ordinary] roast meat14 and he ate it, he is liable.15 While R. Johanan said: If a man had intercourse with his wife, a niddah,13 he is liable; if he had intercourse with his yebamah,13 a niddah, he is not liable.16 Some say, In the former case17 he is all the more liable, seeing that he did not perform a religious duty [at all].18 Others say, In the former case he would not be liable. What is the reason? It is only there19 because he should have asked; but here, that he could not have asked, 20 [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.21 — It refers to his wife when she is pregnant. But there is the pleasure of the periodical visit?22 — 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?23 — It was near her [menstruation] date,24 If so, the same [applies to] his yebamah?25 — he is bashful towards his yebamah,26 [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 Feast27 fell on the Sabbath, and one forgot [himself] and carried out the palm-branch28 into the street,29 he is not liable [to a sin-offering], because he carried it out with permission.30 But perhaps it is different there, because his time is urgent?31 Again, if [it is] in accordance with R. Joshua's [ruling] on infants,32 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,33 R. Eliezer holds him liable for the principal plus a fifth,34 while R. Joshua exempts [him].35 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?36 Alternatively, terumah is different, as it is designated ‘abodah,37 and the Divine Law declared ‘abodah valid,38 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.39 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.’40 he retorted, ‘for whence have we ‘abodah nowadays?’41 Said he to him, ‘Behold, it is said, 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. 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. for another purpose. 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. religious duty. But in the latter case he fulfils a religious duty (v. Deut. XXV, 5). with by R. Johanan. 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. terumah. terumah, he is nevertheless not liable if he does eat it. profane); thus it is translated, Bless . . . (even) him who is profaned (hallal) and accept etc., i.e., let his service be valid.