Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

January 29, 2021 | 讟状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 69

This week’s learning is sponsored by Paul and Danielle Nacamuli in honor of her daughter, Ayelet Yancey’s bat mitzvah. “We’re so proud of you and can’t wait to see where your Jewish journey takes you! Love, Paul and Ima.”

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in honor of the yahrzeits of the Honorable Myriam Altman, Naomi Rosen and the shloshim of Aviva Rolnick, “beloved, cherished and treasured family and friends whom I will always miss and hold forever in my heart.” And by Rachel Geballe in honor of her sister Ellen Werlin. “I am so honored to be learning daf yomi with and alongside you and your daughter Avigayil. You are an inspiring duo! I can’t wait to see what the next year of dapim holds in store. Happy birthday!” And by the Hait family for a refuah shleima for Rabbi Joel Cohn, HaRav Yoel HaKohen ben Dina.聽

The Gemara discusses the words of R. Eliezer and R. Akiva in the Mishnah and brings braitot with expanded discussions between them. The gemara explains the discussion between them in our mishna regarding the matter of does sprinkling the purification waters override Shabbat or not. In the end, the gemara concludes that Rabbi Eliezer himself also didn鈥檛 hold that it overrides Shabbat and Rabbi Akiva was trying to remind him of that. in this matter. The gemara then asks why in fact does Rabbi Eliezer not hold that is overrides Shabbat if he holds preparations for mitzvot do override Shabbat. The gemara brings two answers, the first of which is rejected. The first one claims that one who is not capable of doing the mitzva in the current state, one does not override Shabbat to enable the mitzva. The second answer is that sprinkling is not necessary for the fulfillment of the mitzva. According to who do we hold regarding preparatory actions for mitzvot in general overriding Shabbat? The mishna then brings details regarding a holiday offering that was sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nissan with the Pesach sacrifice. When was it brought and when was it not brought? Are the details similar to the Pesach sacrifice or not?

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讘讜转 讚诪爪讜讛 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛


And Rabbi Eliezer rejects this refutation because, in his opinion, permitting a rabbinic decree for the sake of a mitzva is preferable. We cannot derive through an a fortiori inference that since rabbinic decrees were not permitted for optional activities associated with rejoicing on festivals, they must not be permitted for the purpose of a mitzva on Shabbat. This is because it is possible that they permitted rabbinic decrees for mitzva purposes due to the importance of the mitzva.


转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讚讞讜 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 砖诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讗讬转注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讗 讬讚讞讜 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 砖诇驻谞讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer said: What reason do I have? If actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and are done after the slaughter, such as cleaning the intestines which is permitted according all opinions, override Shabbat even though the mitzva has already been done, is it possible to say that actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and must be done before the slaughter do not also override Shabbat?


讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讚讞讜 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 砖诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖讛专讬 讚讞转讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 转讗诪专 讬讚讞讜 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 砖诇驻谞讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖诇讗 讚讞转讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 讝讘讞 驻住讜诇 讜谞诪爪讗 诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 诇诪驻专注


Rabbi Akiva said to him: What reason do I have to reject this comparison? If actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva that are done after the slaughter override Shabbat, that is because slaughter has already overridden Shabbat and therefore an action that violates a rabbinic decree is performed, after Shabbat has already been overridden; can you say that actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and are done before the slaughter should override Shabbat even though slaughter has not yet overridden Shabbat? Alternatively, Rabbi Akiva has another reason: Perhaps the offering will be found to be disqualified due to a blemish and the person will be found to have violated Shabbat retroactively when he slaughtered the animal without fulfilling a mitzva.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪砖讞讟 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞砖讞讟 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 讝讘讞 驻住讜诇 讜谞诪爪讗 诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 诇诪驻专注 讗诇讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 讜驻专讻讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讱 讚诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讚讞讜:


Rabbi Eliezer rejects this argument: If so, if you are concerned about this possibility, it should also not be slaughtered; for perhaps the offering will be found to be invalid and the person will be found to have violated Shabbat retroactively. Rather, the course of the discussion must have gone as follows: Rabbi Akiva said this last reason to Rabbi Eliezer at the beginning and he refuted it as explained above; and then Rabbi Akiva said to him this other reason of: What reason do I have to reject this comparison? If actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva override, etc.


讛砖讬讘 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗诪专 讛讝讗讛 转讜讻讬讞 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注拽讬讘讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讛砖讘转谞讬 讘砖讞讬讟讛 转讛讗 诪讬转转讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇 转讻驻讬专谞讬 讘砖注转 讛讚讬谉 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪诪讱 讛讝讗讛 砖讘讜转 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva responded and said to Rabbi Eliezer that the law governing the sprinkling of the purifying water of a red heifer proves that actions prohibited by a rabbinic decree, even when they are performed for the sake of a mitzva, do not override Shabbat. He then goes on to argue that we can reverse the order of the argument and conclude by way of an a fortiori inference that even slaughter does not override Shabbat. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to him about this: Akiva, you have lightheartedly responded to me with a faulty a fortiori inference with regard to slaughter. His death will be with slaughter; meaning, as punishment for this disrespect you will be slaughtered by other people. Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, do not deny my contention at the time we are discussing this inference, for this is the tradition I received from you: Sprinkling is forbidden by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat.


讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讛讜讗 讗讙诪专讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 讛讝讗讛 讚转专讜诪讛 讗讙诪专讬讛 讚转专讜诪讛 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转


The Gemara asks: Seeing that Rabbi Eliezer taught Rabbi Akiva this halakha that sprinkling purifying water does not override Shabbat, what is the reason he retracted his opinion? Ulla said: When Rabbi Eliezer taught him this halakha, he taught it to him with respect to sprinkling that is performed in order to enable a ritually impure priest to partake of teruma. This sprinkling does not override Shabbat because even separating teruma itself does not override Shabbat. But he never taught Rabbi Akiva this halakha with respect to sprinkling that is performed in order enable someone to eat of the Paschal lamb.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗讜转讘讬讛 讛讝讗讛 讚转专讜诪讛 讗讜转讘讬讛 砖讛讬讗 诪爪讜讛 讜讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讜讛讜讗 住讘专 讛讝讗讛 讚驻住讞 拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讬讛


The Gemara notes that Rabbi Akiva as well, when he challenged Rabbi Eliezer, challenged him with regard to the halakha of sprinkling for teruma, and his objection should be understood as follows: Eating teruma is a mitzva, and sprinkling purifying water on someone who is ritually impure is only prohibited due to a rabbinic decree; nevertheless, sprinkling purifying water on a ritually impure priest, in order to enable him to eat teruma, is prohibited on Shabbat. Thus it follows by a fortiori inference that slaughter, which is a biblically prohibited labor, should certainly be forbidden on Shabbat, even when performed for the sake of a mitzva. And Rabbi Eliezer thought Rabbi Akiva was challenging him with regard to the halakha of sprinkling that is performed in order to enable someone to eat of the Paschal lamb; that is why he said that he disagreed about sprinkling as well.


诪转讬讘 专讘讛 讛砖讬讘 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗诪专 讛讝讗转 讟诪讗 诪转 转讜讻讬讞 砖讞诇 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜讘注专讘 讛驻住讞 砖讛讬讗 诪爪讜讛 讜讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


Rabba raised an objection to Ulla鈥檚 explanation, based on a different baraita which states: Rabbi Akiva responded and said: The sprinkling of purifying water on someone who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse proves the matter when his seventh day of impurity occurs on Shabbat and it is also the eve of Passover, for it is done for the sake of a mitzva, in order to allow the person to eat of the Paschal lamb, and it is prohibited only due to a rabbinic decree, and nonetheless it does not override Shabbat. From this baraita it is clear that Rabbi Akiva challenged Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the halakha of sprinkling that is performed in order to enable someone to eat the Paschal lamb.


讗诇讗 讜讜讚讗讬 讛讝讗讛 讚驻住讞 讗讙诪专讬讛 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗讙诪专讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 驻专讬讱 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讙诪专讬讛 讗讬转注拽专 诇讬讛 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗讚讻讜专讬 讙诪专讬讛 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬讛 住讘专 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗


Rather, we must reject Ulla鈥檚 explanation and say instead that Rabbi Eliezer certainly taught Rabbi Akiva about sprinkling that is performed in order to enable someone to eat of the Paschal lamb. And with regard to the question that seeing that Rabbi Eliezer himself taught him this halakha, what is the reason that Rabbi Eliezer refutes it, the Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer forgot his own teaching and Rabbi Akiva came to remind him of his teaching by drawing an a fortiori inference that would cause Rabbi Eliezer to remember what he himself had taught. The Gemara asks: If so, then let Rabbi Akiva say explicitly that this is what Rabbi Eliezer himself had taught him. The Gemara answers: He thought that it would not be proper to tell his teacher that he had forgotten his teaching, and therefore his initial attempt was to remind him indirectly.


讜讛讝讗讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转 诪讻讚讬 讟诇讟讜诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 转讚讞讬 砖讘转 诪砖讜诐 驻住讞 讗诪专 专讘讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诇谞讛 讜讬注讘讬专谞讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐


The Gemara questions the reason for the halakha under discussion. What is the reason that the sprinkling of purifying water does not override Shabbat? Since it involves the mere moving of the liquid from the utensil in his hand to the body of the person seeking purification, why should it be forbidden on Shabbat? Let it at least override Shabbat on account of the mitzva of the Paschal lamb. Rabba said: The prohibition against sprinkling is a rabbinic decree that was instituted lest one take the utensil containing the purifying water and carry it a distance of four cubits in the public domain, thus violating an actual Torah prohibition. This is consistent with Rabba鈥檚 opinion in several other places in the Talmud that the Sages forbade the fulfillment of certain mitzvot due to a similar concern about carrying in the public domain.


讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞讬注讘专讬讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诪专讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讙讘专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讞讝讬 讜专诪讬 讞讬讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讙讘专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗 专诪讬 讞讬讜讘讗 注诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: At least according to Rabbi Eliezer, let us carry the purifying water even in the public domain, for Rabbi Eliezer said as a general rule that actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva override Shabbat, even if they are not mitzvot themselves and involve transgression of Torah prohibitions. They say that there is room to distinguish between different situations: The rule that actions necessary to facilitate a mitzva override Shabbat only applies when the person himself is fit to fulfill the mitzva and the obligation to fulfill it is incumbent upon him. But here where the person himself is not fit to eat the Paschal lamb, as he is presently ritually impure, the obligation to fulfill the mitzva is not incumbent upon him, and therefore actions that would enable him to fulfill the mitzva do not override Shabbat.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讟谉 讘专讬讗 诪讞诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪讬谉 诇讛讘专讜转讜 讜诇诪讜诇讜 讘砖讘转 讚讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 拽讟谉 讞讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪讬谉 诇讛讘专讜转讜 讜诇诪讜诇讜 讚讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛


Rabba said: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that when a person is unfit no obligation is incumbent upon him, in the case of a healthy baby, one may heat water for him to strengthen him even further in order to circumcise him on Shabbat, as he is already now fit to be circumcised. But in the case of a sickly baby, one may not heat water for him to strengthen him in order to circumcise him, for owing to his sickliness he is not presently fit for the mitzva, and acts that facilitate a mitzva do not override Shabbat if the person is not currently fit for the mitzva.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬 讘专讬讗 讛讜讗 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讞诪讬谉 诇讛讘专讜转讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讛谉 讗爪诇 诪讬诇讛 讗讞讚 拽讟谉 讘专讬讗 讜讗讞讚 拽讟谉 讞讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪讬谉 诇讛讘专讜转讜 讜诇诪讜诇讜 讘砖讘转 讚讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬


Rava said: But if the baby is healthy, why does he need hot water to strengthen him? Rather, Rava said: All babies are considered sickly with respect to circumcision, as they all need to be washed with hot water. Therefore, both in the case of a healthy baby and in the case of a sickly baby, one may not heat water for him to strengthen him in order to circumcise him on Shabbat, even according to Rabbi Eliezer, as he is not presently fit for the mitzva.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注专诇 砖诇讗 诪诇 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讙讘专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讞讝讬 讜拽转谞讬 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诇诪讗 专诪讬 讞讬讜讘讗 注诇讬讛


Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 distinction between someone who is currently fit for the mitzva and someone who is not, based on what was taught elsewhere in a baraita: An uncircumcised adult who did not circumcise himself before Passover is liable to the punishment of karet for having intentionally violated the mitzva to bring the Paschal lamb, as an uncircumcised person may not eat of the offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. But here the person himself is not fit, for as long as he is uncircumcised he is not obligated to bring the Paschal lamb, and nonetheless the baraita is teaching that he is punished with karet. Apparently, the obligation is incumbent upon him even though he is presently unfit to perform the mitzva.


讗诪专 专讘讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗 砖专抓


Rabba said in answer to this objection: Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb or sprinkle its blood for someone who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal because he is currently impure, even though he can immerse in a ritual bath and become pure by the night of Passover.


讜讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讬讞讬讚 谞讚讞讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 注讘讚讬 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讗讬转讗 讘讬讞讬讚 讜讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 诇讬转讗 讘讬讞讬讚


And Rabbi Eliezer further maintains with regard to any form of impurity due to which an individual is deferred to the second Pesa岣, that if the entire community is afflicted with it, they observe the first Pesa岣 in a state of ritual impurity. And he accepts yet another principle: Anything that applies to the community applies to an individual, and anything that does not apply to the community does not apply to an individual.


注专讬诇讜转 讚讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 爪讬讘讜专 注专诇讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 拽讜诪讜 诪讛讜诇讜 谞驻砖讬讬讻讜 讜注讘讬讚讬 驻住讞讗 讬讞讬讚 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 拽讜诐 诪讛讜诇 讜注讘讬讚 驻住讞讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诇 讜注讘讬讚 注谞讜砖 讻专转


On the basis of these principles, we can say as follows: With regard to lack of circumcision, if the entire community is uncircumcised we say to them: Arise, and circumcise yourselves, and offer the Paschal lamb, and we do not allow them to offer the sacrifice while uncircumcised. Therefore, with regard to an individual as well, we say to him: Arise, and circumcise yourself, and offer the Paschal lamb; and if he does not circumcise himself and offer the Paschal lamb, he is liable to the punishment of karet.


讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 爪讬讘讜专讗 讟诪讗讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪讚讬谞谉 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 注讘讚讬 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讬讞讬讚 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专


With regard to impurity, however, if the whole community is impure we do not sprinkle the purifying water on them; rather, they offer the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity. Therefore, an individual, as well, is exempt from sprinkling; and since he is exempt, sprinkling does not override Shabbat. A distinction may be drawn between the two cases: An uncircumcised person must circumcise himself, but a person who is ritually impure need not undergo purification.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讜讛专讬 驻住讞 砖谞讬 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜讗讬转讬讛 讘讬讞讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讛讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 爪讬讘讜专讗 讘专讗砖讜谉


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Are these principles really correct? But there is the second Pesa岣, which does not apply to the community and yet it applies to an individual. Rava said to Rav Huna: It is different there, as the community already offered the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣 in a state of ritual impurity, and therefore the second Pesa岣 can apply to individuals although it does not apply to the community.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诇讗 砖讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 讜砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 注专诇 讜讟诪讗 砖专抓 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讗讬砖


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita in which it was taught: One might have thought that only one who was pure and not on a distant journey is punishable by karet for having neglected to offer the Paschal lamb, as the Torah explicitly states that a person who was ritually impure or on a distant journey is exempt from the first Pesa岣 and obligated in the second Pesa岣. But as for one who was uncircumcised or ritually impure from a creeping animal and all the others who are ritually impure not from a corpse, and they did not undergo circumcision or purification before Passover, from where do we know that they are also liable to receive karet? The verse states: 鈥淏ut the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, then that person shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Numbers 9:13); the expression 鈥渂ut the man鈥 comes to include anyone who can become pure and fit to participate in the Paschal lamb, but fails to do so.


诪讚拽讗 诪讛讚专 讗讟诪讗 砖专抓 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗 砖专抓 讚讗讬 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗 砖专抓 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讛讚讜专讬讛 注诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟讛讜专 讗诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讞讬讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 讗讬转讬讛 讘讬讞讬讚


The Gemara infers from this baraita: From the fact that he searches for a source to include one who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, it is clear that he holds that one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb or sprinkle its blood for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal. For if one may slaughter and sprinkle for someone impure from a creeping animal, why did he search for a source to include it? He is the same as anyone who is pure and did not offer the Paschal lamb, for he could have sent his offering with someone else and eaten from it in the evening after having undergone ritual immersion. Rather, it is clear that one may not slaughter or sprinkle for him; and, nonetheless, if he neglected the mitzva of the Paschal lamb, he is liable to receive karet. Apparently then, although he was not fit at that time to offer the Paschal lamb, the obligation is nonetheless incumbent upon him to render himself fit. And although this does not apply to the community, for a community that is impure with the impurity of a creeping animal brings the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity, it does apply to an individual.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗 砖专抓 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讟诪讗 诪转 讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 讛讝讗讛 诇诪讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讻讬诇转 驻住讞讬诐 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗


Rather, Rava said that we should reject the previous statement and say instead that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, and the same is true with regard to someone who is ritually impure from a corpse on his seventh day of impurity. If so, for what purpose is the sprinkling of the purifying water? If it is possible to slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on this person鈥檚 behalf even when he is impure, the only reason to sprinkle the purifying water is for the purpose of eating the Paschal lamb. However, eating of the Paschal lamb is not essential for the fulfillment of the mitzva, for if the blood of the sacrifice is sprinkled in a permitted fashion on someone鈥檚 behalf and afterward he is unable to eat the meat of the sacrifice, e.g., it became impure or was lost, he has fulfilled his obligation and is not liable to receive karet. This being the case, sprinkling the purifying waters is not an act that is necessary to facilitate a mitzva and does not override Shabbat even according to Rabbi Eliezer.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞诪爪讗 驻住讞 谞砖讞讟 砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 诇讞讜诇讛 讜诇讝拽谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讬 转拽讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪转拽谉:


Rav Adda bar Abba said to Rava: If it is so, that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, it turns out that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered for people who cannot eat it, and it is stated elsewhere that such a sacrifice is disqualified. Rava said to him: When it says that a Paschal lamb that is slaughtered for people who cannot eat is disqualified, this refers to a case where it is slaughtered for a sick or elderly person who is not at all fit to eat the sacrifice. But this person is essentially fit to eat the sacrifice but has not yet been made ready to actually eat it. He himself is regarded as fit to eat the sacrifice, and it is only some external factor that prevents him from doing so.


讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 诪讬诇讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 诪讬诇讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva stated a principle that any prohibited labor required for the offering of the sacrifice that can be performed before Shabbat does not override Shabbat; whereas slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat.Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the Paschal lamb. The Gemara points out that we also learned something similar to this in another mishna with regard to circumcision: Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor required for circumcision that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat because it need not be done specifically on the day of the circumcision does not override Shabbat; the circumcision itself, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, since it is not yet time to perform the circumcision, overrides Shabbat. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to circumcision.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讘讬 驻住讞 讛转诐 (讚讛讜讗 诪讻砖讬专讬) 诪爪讜讛 诇讗 讚讞讜 砖讘转 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讚谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讚讞讬


The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state this ruling in both cases, for had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva only with regard to the Paschal lamb, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that the facilitators of a mitzva that can be performed the day before do not override Shabbat because thirteen covenants were not established upon the Paschal lamb, and it is therefore not so significant. But with regard to circumcision, upon which thirteen covenants were established, as is evidenced by the fact that the word covenant appears thirteen times in the chapter relating to circumcision (Genesis 17), which serves as a covenant between God and the Jewish nation, I would say that even facilitating actions that could have been performed on Shabbat eve should override Shabbat.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬诇讛 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诇讗 讚讞讜 砖讘转 讚诇讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讘诇 驻住讞 讚讗讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讚讞讬 爪专讬讻讗:


And had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva only with regard to circumcision, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that the facilitators of a mitzva that can be performed before Shabbat do not override Shabbat, as there is no punishment of karet if the circumcision is delayed, since liability for karet only applies when the child becomes obligated in mitzvot and chooses not to circumcise himself. But with regard to the Paschal lamb, where there is karet for one who fails to offer the sacrifice at its proper time, I would say that such facilitators should override Shabbat. It is therefore necessary to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in both cases.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬诪转讬 诪讘讬讗 讞讙讬讙讛 注诪讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 讘讞讜诇 讘讟讛专讛 讜讘诪讜注讟 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 讘砖讘转 讘诪专讜讘讛 讜讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诪讜 讞讙讬讙讛


MISHNA: When does one bring a Festival peace-offering with the Paschal lamb? A special offering is brought on the fourteenth of Nisan together with the Paschal lamb when the Paschal lamb comes on a weekday rather than on Shabbat, and when it comes in a state of ritual purity as opposed to when it is brought in a state of impurity because most of the community is impure, and when many people are registered for the Paschal lamb so that each person will receive only a small portion from it. When these three conditions are met, the Festival peace-offering is eaten first and the Paschal lamb is eaten afterward. When, however, the Paschal lamb comes on Shabbat, or when few people are registered for it so that each person will receive a large portion, or when it is brought in a state of ritual impurity, one does not bring a Festival peace-offering with it.


讞讙讬讙讛 讛讬转讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诪谉 讛讘拽专 诪谉 讛讻讘砖讬诐 讜诪谉 讛注讝讬诐 诪谉 讛讝讻专讬诐 讜诪谉 讛谞拽讘讜转 讜谞讗讻诇转 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚:


With regard to the extra offering itself, the Festival peace-offering would come from the flock, from the herd, from sheep or from goats, from males or from females, as the Festival peace-offering is not bound by the limitations governing the Paschal offering, which must be specifically a young male sheep or goat. And the Festival peace-offering is eaten for two days and one night like other peace-offerings.


讙诪壮 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 讞讙讬讙讛 转谞讗 讛专讻讘转讜 讜讛讘讗转讜 讚诇讗 讚讞讬 砖讘转 讜拽转谞讬 谞诪讬 讞讙讬讙讛 讚诇讗 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪转讬 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诪讜 讞讙讬讙讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 讘讞讜诇 讘讟讛专讛 讜讘诪讜注讟


GEMARA: The Gemara questions why this halakha is recorded here: What did the mishna previously teach that made it relevant to teach this halakha with regard to a Festival peace-offering despite the fact that it seems to be unconnected to the previous mishnayot? The Gemara answers: Since it taught that carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain and bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit do not override Shabbat, it also taught with regard to the halakha of a Festival peace-offering, that it does not override Shabbat. And this is what the mishna is saying: When does one bring a Festival peace-offering with the Paschal lamb? When it comes on a weekday, in a state of ritual purity, and when each person鈥檚 portion is small.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讙讬讙转 讗专讘注讛 注砖专


Rav Ashi said: Learn from this that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan, which comes with the Paschal lamb and is the subject of our mishna, as opposed to the Festival peace-offering that is brought on the first day of Passover and is called the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth,


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf_icon

Pesachim 67-73 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 camps that existed in the desert and who needed to leave which...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 69: The Student Akiva

More on R. Eliezer, R. Yehoshua, and R. Akiva, and their dispute from the mishnah - in terms of what,...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 59: Sacrificial Parts

The order of the ritual on Erev Pesach: daily offering, Korban Pesach, incense, lighting menorah. Why so? Including, a specific...

Pesachim 69

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 69

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讘讜转 讚诪爪讜讛 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛


And Rabbi Eliezer rejects this refutation because, in his opinion, permitting a rabbinic decree for the sake of a mitzva is preferable. We cannot derive through an a fortiori inference that since rabbinic decrees were not permitted for optional activities associated with rejoicing on festivals, they must not be permitted for the purpose of a mitzva on Shabbat. This is because it is possible that they permitted rabbinic decrees for mitzva purposes due to the importance of the mitzva.


转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讚讞讜 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 砖诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讗讬转注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讗 讬讚讞讜 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 砖诇驻谞讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer said: What reason do I have? If actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and are done after the slaughter, such as cleaning the intestines which is permitted according all opinions, override Shabbat even though the mitzva has already been done, is it possible to say that actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and must be done before the slaughter do not also override Shabbat?


讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讚讞讜 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 砖诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖讛专讬 讚讞转讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 转讗诪专 讬讚讞讜 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 砖诇驻谞讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖诇讗 讚讞转讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 讝讘讞 驻住讜诇 讜谞诪爪讗 诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 诇诪驻专注


Rabbi Akiva said to him: What reason do I have to reject this comparison? If actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva that are done after the slaughter override Shabbat, that is because slaughter has already overridden Shabbat and therefore an action that violates a rabbinic decree is performed, after Shabbat has already been overridden; can you say that actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva and are done before the slaughter should override Shabbat even though slaughter has not yet overridden Shabbat? Alternatively, Rabbi Akiva has another reason: Perhaps the offering will be found to be disqualified due to a blemish and the person will be found to have violated Shabbat retroactively when he slaughtered the animal without fulfilling a mitzva.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪砖讞讟 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞砖讞讟 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 讝讘讞 驻住讜诇 讜谞诪爪讗 诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 诇诪驻专注 讗诇讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专讬砖讗 讜驻专讻讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讱 讚诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讚讞讜:


Rabbi Eliezer rejects this argument: If so, if you are concerned about this possibility, it should also not be slaughtered; for perhaps the offering will be found to be invalid and the person will be found to have violated Shabbat retroactively. Rather, the course of the discussion must have gone as follows: Rabbi Akiva said this last reason to Rabbi Eliezer at the beginning and he refuted it as explained above; and then Rabbi Akiva said to him this other reason of: What reason do I have to reject this comparison? If actions that facilitate the performance of the mitzva override, etc.


讛砖讬讘 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗诪专 讛讝讗讛 转讜讻讬讞 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注拽讬讘讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讛砖讘转谞讬 讘砖讞讬讟讛 转讛讗 诪讬转转讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇 转讻驻讬专谞讬 讘砖注转 讛讚讬谉 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪诪讱 讛讝讗讛 砖讘讜转 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva responded and said to Rabbi Eliezer that the law governing the sprinkling of the purifying water of a red heifer proves that actions prohibited by a rabbinic decree, even when they are performed for the sake of a mitzva, do not override Shabbat. He then goes on to argue that we can reverse the order of the argument and conclude by way of an a fortiori inference that even slaughter does not override Shabbat. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to him about this: Akiva, you have lightheartedly responded to me with a faulty a fortiori inference with regard to slaughter. His death will be with slaughter; meaning, as punishment for this disrespect you will be slaughtered by other people. Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, do not deny my contention at the time we are discussing this inference, for this is the tradition I received from you: Sprinkling is forbidden by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat.


讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讛讜讗 讗讙诪专讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 讛讝讗讛 讚转专讜诪讛 讗讙诪专讬讛 讚转专讜诪讛 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转


The Gemara asks: Seeing that Rabbi Eliezer taught Rabbi Akiva this halakha that sprinkling purifying water does not override Shabbat, what is the reason he retracted his opinion? Ulla said: When Rabbi Eliezer taught him this halakha, he taught it to him with respect to sprinkling that is performed in order to enable a ritually impure priest to partake of teruma. This sprinkling does not override Shabbat because even separating teruma itself does not override Shabbat. But he never taught Rabbi Akiva this halakha with respect to sprinkling that is performed in order enable someone to eat of the Paschal lamb.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗讜转讘讬讛 讛讝讗讛 讚转专讜诪讛 讗讜转讘讬讛 砖讛讬讗 诪爪讜讛 讜讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讜讛讜讗 住讘专 讛讝讗讛 讚驻住讞 拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讬讛


The Gemara notes that Rabbi Akiva as well, when he challenged Rabbi Eliezer, challenged him with regard to the halakha of sprinkling for teruma, and his objection should be understood as follows: Eating teruma is a mitzva, and sprinkling purifying water on someone who is ritually impure is only prohibited due to a rabbinic decree; nevertheless, sprinkling purifying water on a ritually impure priest, in order to enable him to eat teruma, is prohibited on Shabbat. Thus it follows by a fortiori inference that slaughter, which is a biblically prohibited labor, should certainly be forbidden on Shabbat, even when performed for the sake of a mitzva. And Rabbi Eliezer thought Rabbi Akiva was challenging him with regard to the halakha of sprinkling that is performed in order to enable someone to eat of the Paschal lamb; that is why he said that he disagreed about sprinkling as well.


诪转讬讘 专讘讛 讛砖讬讘 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗诪专 讛讝讗转 讟诪讗 诪转 转讜讻讬讞 砖讞诇 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜讘注专讘 讛驻住讞 砖讛讬讗 诪爪讜讛 讜讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


Rabba raised an objection to Ulla鈥檚 explanation, based on a different baraita which states: Rabbi Akiva responded and said: The sprinkling of purifying water on someone who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse proves the matter when his seventh day of impurity occurs on Shabbat and it is also the eve of Passover, for it is done for the sake of a mitzva, in order to allow the person to eat of the Paschal lamb, and it is prohibited only due to a rabbinic decree, and nonetheless it does not override Shabbat. From this baraita it is clear that Rabbi Akiva challenged Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the halakha of sprinkling that is performed in order to enable someone to eat the Paschal lamb.


讗诇讗 讜讜讚讗讬 讛讝讗讛 讚驻住讞 讗讙诪专讬讛 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗讙诪专讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 驻专讬讱 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讙诪专讬讛 讗讬转注拽专 诇讬讛 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗讚讻讜专讬 讙诪专讬讛 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬讛 住讘专 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗


Rather, we must reject Ulla鈥檚 explanation and say instead that Rabbi Eliezer certainly taught Rabbi Akiva about sprinkling that is performed in order to enable someone to eat of the Paschal lamb. And with regard to the question that seeing that Rabbi Eliezer himself taught him this halakha, what is the reason that Rabbi Eliezer refutes it, the Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer forgot his own teaching and Rabbi Akiva came to remind him of his teaching by drawing an a fortiori inference that would cause Rabbi Eliezer to remember what he himself had taught. The Gemara asks: If so, then let Rabbi Akiva say explicitly that this is what Rabbi Eliezer himself had taught him. The Gemara answers: He thought that it would not be proper to tell his teacher that he had forgotten his teaching, and therefore his initial attempt was to remind him indirectly.


讜讛讝讗讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转 诪讻讚讬 讟诇讟讜诇讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 转讚讞讬 砖讘转 诪砖讜诐 驻住讞 讗诪专 专讘讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诇谞讛 讜讬注讘讬专谞讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐


The Gemara questions the reason for the halakha under discussion. What is the reason that the sprinkling of purifying water does not override Shabbat? Since it involves the mere moving of the liquid from the utensil in his hand to the body of the person seeking purification, why should it be forbidden on Shabbat? Let it at least override Shabbat on account of the mitzva of the Paschal lamb. Rabba said: The prohibition against sprinkling is a rabbinic decree that was instituted lest one take the utensil containing the purifying water and carry it a distance of four cubits in the public domain, thus violating an actual Torah prohibition. This is consistent with Rabba鈥檚 opinion in several other places in the Talmud that the Sages forbade the fulfillment of certain mitzvot due to a similar concern about carrying in the public domain.


讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞讬注讘专讬讛 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诪专讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讙讘专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讞讝讬 讜专诪讬 讞讬讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讙讘专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗 专诪讬 讞讬讜讘讗 注诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: At least according to Rabbi Eliezer, let us carry the purifying water even in the public domain, for Rabbi Eliezer said as a general rule that actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva override Shabbat, even if they are not mitzvot themselves and involve transgression of Torah prohibitions. They say that there is room to distinguish between different situations: The rule that actions necessary to facilitate a mitzva override Shabbat only applies when the person himself is fit to fulfill the mitzva and the obligation to fulfill it is incumbent upon him. But here where the person himself is not fit to eat the Paschal lamb, as he is presently ritually impure, the obligation to fulfill the mitzva is not incumbent upon him, and therefore actions that would enable him to fulfill the mitzva do not override Shabbat.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讟谉 讘专讬讗 诪讞诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪讬谉 诇讛讘专讜转讜 讜诇诪讜诇讜 讘砖讘转 讚讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 拽讟谉 讞讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪讬谉 诇讛讘专讜转讜 讜诇诪讜诇讜 讚讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛


Rabba said: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that when a person is unfit no obligation is incumbent upon him, in the case of a healthy baby, one may heat water for him to strengthen him even further in order to circumcise him on Shabbat, as he is already now fit to be circumcised. But in the case of a sickly baby, one may not heat water for him to strengthen him in order to circumcise him, for owing to his sickliness he is not presently fit for the mitzva, and acts that facilitate a mitzva do not override Shabbat if the person is not currently fit for the mitzva.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬 讘专讬讗 讛讜讗 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讞诪讬谉 诇讛讘专讜转讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讛谉 讗爪诇 诪讬诇讛 讗讞讚 拽讟谉 讘专讬讗 讜讗讞讚 拽讟谉 讞讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诪讬谉 诇讜 讞诪讬谉 诇讛讘专讜转讜 讜诇诪讜诇讜 讘砖讘转 讚讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬


Rava said: But if the baby is healthy, why does he need hot water to strengthen him? Rather, Rava said: All babies are considered sickly with respect to circumcision, as they all need to be washed with hot water. Therefore, both in the case of a healthy baby and in the case of a sickly baby, one may not heat water for him to strengthen him in order to circumcise him on Shabbat, even according to Rabbi Eliezer, as he is not presently fit for the mitzva.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注专诇 砖诇讗 诪诇 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讙讘专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讞讝讬 讜拽转谞讬 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诇诪讗 专诪讬 讞讬讜讘讗 注诇讬讛


Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 distinction between someone who is currently fit for the mitzva and someone who is not, based on what was taught elsewhere in a baraita: An uncircumcised adult who did not circumcise himself before Passover is liable to the punishment of karet for having intentionally violated the mitzva to bring the Paschal lamb, as an uncircumcised person may not eat of the offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. But here the person himself is not fit, for as long as he is uncircumcised he is not obligated to bring the Paschal lamb, and nonetheless the baraita is teaching that he is punished with karet. Apparently, the obligation is incumbent upon him even though he is presently unfit to perform the mitzva.


讗诪专 专讘讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗 砖专抓


Rabba said in answer to this objection: Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb or sprinkle its blood for someone who is ritually impure due to contact with a creeping animal because he is currently impure, even though he can immerse in a ritual bath and become pure by the night of Passover.


讜讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘讬讞讬讚 谞讚讞讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 注讘讚讬 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讗讬转讗 讘讬讞讬讚 讜讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 诇讬转讗 讘讬讞讬讚


And Rabbi Eliezer further maintains with regard to any form of impurity due to which an individual is deferred to the second Pesa岣, that if the entire community is afflicted with it, they observe the first Pesa岣 in a state of ritual impurity. And he accepts yet another principle: Anything that applies to the community applies to an individual, and anything that does not apply to the community does not apply to an individual.


注专讬诇讜转 讚讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 爪讬讘讜专 注专诇讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 拽讜诪讜 诪讛讜诇讜 谞驻砖讬讬讻讜 讜注讘讬讚讬 驻住讞讗 讬讞讬讚 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 拽讜诐 诪讛讜诇 讜注讘讬讚 驻住讞讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诇 讜注讘讬讚 注谞讜砖 讻专转


On the basis of these principles, we can say as follows: With regard to lack of circumcision, if the entire community is uncircumcised we say to them: Arise, and circumcise yourselves, and offer the Paschal lamb, and we do not allow them to offer the sacrifice while uncircumcised. Therefore, with regard to an individual as well, we say to him: Arise, and circumcise yourself, and offer the Paschal lamb; and if he does not circumcise himself and offer the Paschal lamb, he is liable to the punishment of karet.


讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讬 讻讜诇讬讛 爪讬讘讜专讗 讟诪讗讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪讚讬谞谉 注诇讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 注讘讚讬 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讬讞讬讚 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专


With regard to impurity, however, if the whole community is impure we do not sprinkle the purifying water on them; rather, they offer the Paschal lamb in a state of ritual impurity. Therefore, an individual, as well, is exempt from sprinkling; and since he is exempt, sprinkling does not override Shabbat. A distinction may be drawn between the two cases: An uncircumcised person must circumcise himself, but a person who is ritually impure need not undergo purification.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讜讛专讬 驻住讞 砖谞讬 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜讗讬转讬讛 讘讬讞讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讛讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 爪讬讘讜专讗 讘专讗砖讜谉


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Are these principles really correct? But there is the second Pesa岣, which does not apply to the community and yet it applies to an individual. Rava said to Rav Huna: It is different there, as the community already offered the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣 in a state of ritual impurity, and therefore the second Pesa岣 can apply to individuals although it does not apply to the community.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讗诇讗 砖讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 讜砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 注专诇 讜讟诪讗 砖专抓 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讗讬砖


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita in which it was taught: One might have thought that only one who was pure and not on a distant journey is punishable by karet for having neglected to offer the Paschal lamb, as the Torah explicitly states that a person who was ritually impure or on a distant journey is exempt from the first Pesa岣 and obligated in the second Pesa岣. But as for one who was uncircumcised or ritually impure from a creeping animal and all the others who are ritually impure not from a corpse, and they did not undergo circumcision or purification before Passover, from where do we know that they are also liable to receive karet? The verse states: 鈥淏ut the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, then that person shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Numbers 9:13); the expression 鈥渂ut the man鈥 comes to include anyone who can become pure and fit to participate in the Paschal lamb, but fails to do so.


诪讚拽讗 诪讛讚专 讗讟诪讗 砖专抓 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗 砖专抓 讚讗讬 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗 砖专抓 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讛讚讜专讬讛 注诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟讛讜专 讗诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讞讬讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 讗讬转讬讛 讘讬讞讬讚


The Gemara infers from this baraita: From the fact that he searches for a source to include one who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, it is clear that he holds that one may not slaughter the Paschal lamb or sprinkle its blood for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal. For if one may slaughter and sprinkle for someone impure from a creeping animal, why did he search for a source to include it? He is the same as anyone who is pure and did not offer the Paschal lamb, for he could have sent his offering with someone else and eaten from it in the evening after having undergone ritual immersion. Rather, it is clear that one may not slaughter or sprinkle for him; and, nonetheless, if he neglected the mitzva of the Paschal lamb, he is liable to receive karet. Apparently then, although he was not fit at that time to offer the Paschal lamb, the obligation is nonetheless incumbent upon him to render himself fit. And although this does not apply to the community, for a community that is impure with the impurity of a creeping animal brings the Paschal lamb in a state of impurity, it does apply to an individual.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讝讜专拽讬谉 注诇 讟诪讗 砖专抓 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讟诪讗 诪转 讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 讛讝讗讛 诇诪讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讻讬诇转 驻住讞讬诐 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗


Rather, Rava said that we should reject the previous statement and say instead that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, and the same is true with regard to someone who is ritually impure from a corpse on his seventh day of impurity. If so, for what purpose is the sprinkling of the purifying water? If it is possible to slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on this person鈥檚 behalf even when he is impure, the only reason to sprinkle the purifying water is for the purpose of eating the Paschal lamb. However, eating of the Paschal lamb is not essential for the fulfillment of the mitzva, for if the blood of the sacrifice is sprinkled in a permitted fashion on someone鈥檚 behalf and afterward he is unable to eat the meat of the sacrifice, e.g., it became impure or was lost, he has fulfilled his obligation and is not liable to receive karet. This being the case, sprinkling the purifying waters is not an act that is necessary to facilitate a mitzva and does not override Shabbat even according to Rabbi Eliezer.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞诪爪讗 驻住讞 谞砖讞讟 砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 诇讞讜诇讛 讜诇讝拽谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讬 转拽讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪转拽谉:


Rav Adda bar Abba said to Rava: If it is so, that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb for someone who is ritually impure from a creeping animal, it turns out that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered for people who cannot eat it, and it is stated elsewhere that such a sacrifice is disqualified. Rava said to him: When it says that a Paschal lamb that is slaughtered for people who cannot eat is disqualified, this refers to a case where it is slaughtered for a sick or elderly person who is not at all fit to eat the sacrifice. But this person is essentially fit to eat the sacrifice but has not yet been made ready to actually eat it. He himself is regarded as fit to eat the sacrifice, and it is only some external factor that prevents him from doing so.


讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 诪讬诇讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 诪讬诇讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva stated a principle that any prohibited labor required for the offering of the sacrifice that can be performed before Shabbat does not override Shabbat; whereas slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat.Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the Paschal lamb. The Gemara points out that we also learned something similar to this in another mishna with regard to circumcision: Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor required for circumcision that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat because it need not be done specifically on the day of the circumcision does not override Shabbat; the circumcision itself, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, since it is not yet time to perform the circumcision, overrides Shabbat. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to circumcision.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讘讬 驻住讞 讛转诐 (讚讛讜讗 诪讻砖讬专讬) 诪爪讜讛 诇讗 讚讞讜 砖讘转 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讚谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讚讞讬


The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state this ruling in both cases, for had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva only with regard to the Paschal lamb, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that the facilitators of a mitzva that can be performed the day before do not override Shabbat because thirteen covenants were not established upon the Paschal lamb, and it is therefore not so significant. But with regard to circumcision, upon which thirteen covenants were established, as is evidenced by the fact that the word covenant appears thirteen times in the chapter relating to circumcision (Genesis 17), which serves as a covenant between God and the Jewish nation, I would say that even facilitating actions that could have been performed on Shabbat eve should override Shabbat.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬诇讛 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诇讗 讚讞讜 砖讘转 讚诇讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讘诇 驻住讞 讚讗讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讚讞讬 爪专讬讻讗:


And had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva only with regard to circumcision, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that the facilitators of a mitzva that can be performed before Shabbat do not override Shabbat, as there is no punishment of karet if the circumcision is delayed, since liability for karet only applies when the child becomes obligated in mitzvot and chooses not to circumcise himself. But with regard to the Paschal lamb, where there is karet for one who fails to offer the sacrifice at its proper time, I would say that such facilitators should override Shabbat. It is therefore necessary to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in both cases.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讬诪转讬 诪讘讬讗 讞讙讬讙讛 注诪讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 讘讞讜诇 讘讟讛专讛 讜讘诪讜注讟 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 讘砖讘转 讘诪专讜讘讛 讜讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诪讜 讞讙讬讙讛


MISHNA: When does one bring a Festival peace-offering with the Paschal lamb? A special offering is brought on the fourteenth of Nisan together with the Paschal lamb when the Paschal lamb comes on a weekday rather than on Shabbat, and when it comes in a state of ritual purity as opposed to when it is brought in a state of impurity because most of the community is impure, and when many people are registered for the Paschal lamb so that each person will receive only a small portion from it. When these three conditions are met, the Festival peace-offering is eaten first and the Paschal lamb is eaten afterward. When, however, the Paschal lamb comes on Shabbat, or when few people are registered for it so that each person will receive a large portion, or when it is brought in a state of ritual impurity, one does not bring a Festival peace-offering with it.


讞讙讬讙讛 讛讬转讛 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诪谉 讛讘拽专 诪谉 讛讻讘砖讬诐 讜诪谉 讛注讝讬诐 诪谉 讛讝讻专讬诐 讜诪谉 讛谞拽讘讜转 讜谞讗讻诇转 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚:


With regard to the extra offering itself, the Festival peace-offering would come from the flock, from the herd, from sheep or from goats, from males or from females, as the Festival peace-offering is not bound by the limitations governing the Paschal offering, which must be specifically a young male sheep or goat. And the Festival peace-offering is eaten for two days and one night like other peace-offerings.


讙诪壮 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 讞讙讬讙讛 转谞讗 讛专讻讘转讜 讜讛讘讗转讜 讚诇讗 讚讞讬 砖讘转 讜拽转谞讬 谞诪讬 讞讙讬讙讛 讚诇讗 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪转讬 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诪讜 讞讙讬讙讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 讘讞讜诇 讘讟讛专讛 讜讘诪讜注讟


GEMARA: The Gemara questions why this halakha is recorded here: What did the mishna previously teach that made it relevant to teach this halakha with regard to a Festival peace-offering despite the fact that it seems to be unconnected to the previous mishnayot? The Gemara answers: Since it taught that carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain and bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit do not override Shabbat, it also taught with regard to the halakha of a Festival peace-offering, that it does not override Shabbat. And this is what the mishna is saying: When does one bring a Festival peace-offering with the Paschal lamb? When it comes on a weekday, in a state of ritual purity, and when each person鈥檚 portion is small.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讙讬讙转 讗专讘注讛 注砖专


Rav Ashi said: Learn from this that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan, which comes with the Paschal lamb and is the subject of our mishna, as opposed to the Festival peace-offering that is brought on the first day of Passover and is called the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth,


Scroll To Top