Pesachim 71
בִּשְׁעַת שִׂמְחָה, וְלֵיכָּא. מִשּׁוּם חֲגִיגָה: הָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁבְּחוֹבָה, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּחוֹבָה אֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין.
at the time of rejoicing, on the Festival itself, and if it was slaughtered on the fourteenth it is not. The mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering is also not fulfilled, for it is something that is an obligation, as everyone is obligated to bring this offering, and the principle is that anything that is an obligation must come only from that which is unconsecrated, meaning that one cannot bring an obligatory offering from an animal that has already been consecrated for another purpose.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: ״וְהָיִיתָ אַךְ שָׂמֵחַ״ — לְרַבּוֹת לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן לְשִׂמְחָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ (שָׂמֵחַ)״ — חָלַק.
The Gemara proposes: Let us say that a baraita supports him. The verse states: “Seven days shall you celebrate to the Lord your God in the place that the Lord shall choose, for the Lord your God shall bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, and you shall be but joyous” (Deuteronomy 16:15). This verse seems superfluous, as it was already stated in the previous verse: “And you shall rejoice in your Festival.” The baraita expounds: “And you shall be but joyous” comes to include the last night of the Festival. Even then you must make sure there is rejoicing by eating the appropriate peace-offerings. The baraita considers: Do you say that the verse comes to include the last night of the Festival? Or perhaps it comes to include only the first night of the Festival. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall be but joyous”; the word “but” restricts this mitzva, meaning that there is not always a mitzva to be joyous.
מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין לוֹ בַּמֶּה יִשְׂמַח!
The Gemara clarifies how this baraita supports Ulla: What is the reason that we learn from this expression that it is specifically on the first night that there is no mitzva of rejoicing? Is it not because on the first night he has nothing with which to rejoice? As Ulla said, one cannot fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing with a peace-offering that was slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, because it was not slaughtered at the time of rejoicing. On the last night of the Festival, on the other hand, one can rejoice with a peace-offering that was slaughtered the previous day, i.e., the last intermediate day of the Festival, which is also a time of rejoicing.
לָא, כִּדְתָנֵי טַעְמָא: מָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן וּלְהוֹצִיא לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ שִׂמְחָה לְפָנָיו, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁאֵין שִׂמְחָה לְפָנָיו.
The Gemara rejects this support: No, it is not for this reason, but rather for the reason taught in the continuation of the baraita: What did you see to include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing and to exclude the first night of the Festival, a distinction that is not even hinted at in the verse? The baraita explains: I include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing, for there is rejoicing on the days of the Festival preceding it, and I exclude the first night of the Festival, for there is no day of rejoicing preceding it. Thus, no support for Ulla can be deduced from the baraita.
מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: חֲגִיגַת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹצֵא בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם שִׂמְחָה, וְאֵין יוֹצֵא בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם חֲגִיגָה. אַמַּאי? הָא בָּעֵינַן זְבִיחָה בִּשְׁעַת שִׂמְחָה, וְלֵיכָּא! אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: שֶׁעִיכֵּב וּשְׁחָטָהּ.
Rav Yosef raised an objection against the opinion of Ulla: It was taught in a baraita with regard to the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth that one fulfills with it the mitzva to bring peace-offerings of rejoicing, but one does not fulfill with it the mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering. We can ask, why? Surely, according to Ulla, we require that the slaughter be performed at a time of rejoicing, and this requirement is not fulfilled in this case. The Gemara answers: Rav Idi bar Avin said that the baraita is referring here to a case where he delayed and slaughtered it only on the fifteenth, i.e., on the Festival, which is a time of rejoicing.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָא מַתְנִיתָא מַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? בֶּן תֵּימָא — בֶּן תֵּימָא הָא פָּסְלָה לַהּ בְּלִינָה! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rav Ashi said: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita in this manner, for if you do not say so, but rather that the Festival peace-offering was slaughtered on the fourteenth, there is a difficulty, for who taught this baraita? Is it not ben Teima who taught it? According to ben Teima, however, he has disqualified it by leaving it overnight, for in his view this Festival peace-offering is similar to a Paschal lamb and may not be eaten the following day. Learn from this that the baraita must be referring to a case where the Festival peace-offering was slaughtered not on the fourteenth, but on the fifteenth.
מֵתִיב רָבָא: הַהַלֵּל וְהַשִּׂמְחָה שְׁמֹנָה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בָּעֵינַן זְבִיחָה בִּשְׁעַת שִׂמְחָה, הָא זִמְנִין סַגִּיאִין דְּלָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ אֶלָּא שִׁבְעָה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָל יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: מְשַׂמְּחוֹ בִּשְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים.
Rava raised an objection against the opinion of Ulla: It was taught in a baraita that the hallel is recited and the mitzva of rejoicing with the peace-offerings of rejoicing is observed on the festival of Sukkot for eight days. Now if you say we require that the slaughter be performed at a time of rejoicing, many times you find that the mitzva of rejoicing is observed for only seven days, such as when the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, when a peace-offering of rejoicing may not be slaughtered. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, said: One rejoices with the male goats of the Festivals. That is to say, in such a situation the mitzva of rejoicing can be fulfilled with the meat of the goats that are brought on the Festivals as sin-offerings, as these offerings, being communal offerings, may be slaughtered even on Shabbat.
אָמַר רָבָא, שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר: חֲדָא, דִּשְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים חַי נֶאֱכָלִין צָלִי אֵין נֶאֱכָלִין, וְשִׂמְחָה בְּחַי לֵיכָּא. וְעוֹד, כֹּהֲנִים אוֹכְלִין וְיִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמֶּה שְׂמֵחִים? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מְשַׂמְּחוֹ בִּכְסוּת נְקִיָּה וְיַיִן יָשָׁן.
Rava said: There are two possible responses to refute this. One is that the male goats of the Festivals are eaten raw and are not eaten roasted. Being a non-essential part of the service, roasting the meat is forbidden on Shabbat. Therefore, the meat can be eaten only raw, and there is no rejoicing with raw meat. And furthermore, only the priests eat of the meat of these sin-offerings. With what then do ordinary Israelites rejoice? Rather, Rav Pappa said: In such a situation, one rejoices with clean clothes and old wine.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם שִׂמְחָה וְאֵין יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם חֲגִיגָה. יוֹצֵא מִשּׁוּם שִׂמְחָה — לָא בָּעֵינַן זְבִיחָה בִּשְׁעַת שִׂמְחָה. וְלָא מִשּׁוּם חֲגִיגָה — הָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁבְּחוֹבָה, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּחוֹבָה אֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין.
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related a different version of what Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to peace-offerings that one slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, one fulfills with them the mitzva to bring peace-offerings of rejoicing, but one does not fulfill with them the mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering. He explains: One fulfills the mitzva of rejoicing, because we do not require that the slaughter be performed at the time of rejoicing as long as the offering is eaten at the time of rejoicing. But one does not fulfill the mitzva of the Festival peace-offering, because the Festival peace-offering is something that is an obligation, and the principle is that anything that is an obligation must come only from unconsecrated animals.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְהָיִיתָ אַךְ שָׂמֵחַ״ — לְרַבּוֹת לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן לְשִׂמְחָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְרַבּוֹת לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אַךְ״ — חָלַק.
The Gemara raises an objection against Ravin from the baraita that was taught above: “And you shall be but joyous” comes to include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing. The baraita considers: Do you say that the verse comes to include the last night in the mitzva of rejoicing? Or perhaps it comes to include only the first night of the Festival? Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall be but joyous”; the word “but” restricts this mitzva, meaning that there is not always a mitzva to be joyous.
מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין לוֹ בַּמֶּה יִשְׂמַח! לֹא, כִּדְתַנְיָא: מָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן וּלְהוֹצִיא לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ שִׂמְחָה לְפָנָיו, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁאֵין שִׂמְחָה לְפָנָיו.
The Gemara explains how this baraita is difficult according to Ravin: What is the reason that we learn from here that it is specifically on the first night that there is no mitzva of rejoicing? Is it not because on the first night he has nothing with which to rejoice, as one cannot fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing with peace-offerings slaughtered not at a time of rejoicing? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the reason is as it was taught in the continuation of the baraita: What did you see to include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing and to exclude the first night of the Festival? The baraita explains: I include the last night of the Festival, for there is rejoicing on the days of the Festival preceding it, and I exclude the first night of the Festival, for there is no day of rejoicing preceding it.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִנַּיִן לְאֵימוּרֵי חֲגִיגַת חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר שֶׁנִּפְסָלִין בְּלִינָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יָלִין חֵלֶב חַגִּי עַד בֹּקֶר״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״רֵאשִׁית״ לְמֵימְרָא דְּהַאי בֹּקֶר — בֹּקֶר רִאשׁוֹן.
Rav Kahana said: From where is it derived that the sacrificial parts of the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth of Nisan, i.e., those portions of the offering that are consumed on the altar, are disqualified when left overnight on the first night after the offering is slaughtered, despite the fact that the meat of the offering may be consumed for an additional day? As it is stated: “You shall not offer the blood of My offering with leaven; neither shall the fat of my Festival offering be left over until morning” (Exodus 23:18), and, juxtaposed with it is the word first, in the verse: “The first of the first fruits of your land you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God” (Exodus 23:19). This comes to say to us that the morning mentioned in the first verse is the first morning after the offering has been sacrificed.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב ״רֵאשִׁית״, הָא לָא כְּתַב ״רֵאשִׁית״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מַאי בֹּקֶר — בֹּקֶר שֵׁנִי. מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּבָשָׂר אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ מֵאוּרְתָּא, וְאֵמוּרִין עַד צַפְרָא?
Rav Yosef strongly objects to this proof: The reason is that it wrote the word first. But had it not written the word first, I would have said: What is the meaning of the term morning? The second morning after it was sacrificed. This raises a question: Is there anything like this where the meat of an offering that is to be eaten is disqualified already from the evening, as the meat of a Festival peace-offering may be eaten only for two days and the night between them, while the sacrificial parts to be consumed on the altar are permitted until the next morning?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַלְּמָה לָא? וַהֲרֵי פֶּסַח לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, דְּבָשָׂר אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ מֵחֲצוֹת, וְאֵמוּרִין עַד צַפְרָא!
Abaye said to him: Why not? For there is the Paschal offering according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who holds that the meat that is to be eaten is disqualified already from midnight and may no longer be eaten after that time, while the sacrificial parts to be consumed on the altar may be offered until morning.
אָמַר רָבָא, רַב יוֹסֵף הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאִלּוּ תַּנָּא לְבָשָׂר לָא בָּעֵי ״רֵאשִׁית״, וְרַב כָּהֲנָא לְאֵימוּרִין בָּעֵי ״רֵאשִׁית״?
Rava said: This is what was difficult to Rav Yosef: Is there anything like this, i.e., that the tanna does not need the word “first” to teach us that the word “morning,” written with regard to the meat of an offering, is referring to the first morning, whereas Rav Kahana requires the word “first” to teach us that the word “morning,” written with regard to the sacrificial portions to be consumed on the altar, is referring to the first morning? This is despite the fact that the latter, owing to their greater sanctity, are obviously more easily disqualified than the former.
מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא יָלִין מִן הַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר תִּזְבַּח בָּעֶרֶב בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן לַבֹּקֶר״,
The Gemara asks: What is this source alluded to by Rava? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Nor shall any of the meat that you sacrifice on the first day at evening remain overnight until the morning” (Deuteronomy 16:4),
לִימֵּד עַל חֲגִיגַת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁנֶּאֱכֶלֶת לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בְּיוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן לַבֹּקֶר״ — הֲרֵי בֹּקֶר שֵׁנִי אָמוּר.
this verse teaches that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is eaten for two days and one night; that is, it may not remain overnight until the morning of the sixteenth. Or perhaps it is eaten for only a day and a night; that is, it may not remain overnight until the morning of the fifteenth. Since for that it would have sufficed to say that an offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight,” when it says that an offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight until the morning” (Deuteronomy 16:4), the extra phrase “until the morning” indicates that the verse speaks of the second morning.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בֹּקֶר רִאשׁוֹן, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים חֲגִיגָה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וָלַיְלָה אֶחָד — חוּץ מִזּוֹ, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר בּוֹ: ״אִם נֶדֶר אוֹ נְדָבָה״ — לִימֵּד עַל חֲגִיגַת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁנֶּאֱכֶלֶת לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וָלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
There is still room to say: Or perhaps it is eaten only until the first morning, and how do I establish what the Torah says, that a Festival peace-offering may be eaten for two days and one night? This applies to Festival peace-offerings other than this one. The baraita explains: When it says with regard to a peace-offering: “But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow or a free-will offering, it shall be eaten on the same day that he sacrifices his offering; and on the morrow also, the remainder of it shall be eaten” (Leviticus 7:16), it teaches that any peace-offering, whether a vow or a free-will offering, or an obligation, including the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, is eaten for two days and one night.
אָמַר מָר: אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בֹּקֶר רִאשׁוֹן. הָא אָמַרְתָּ: כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן (לַבֹּקֶר)״ — הֲרֵי בֹּקֶר שֵׁנִי אָמוּר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲגִיגוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אַחַת חֲגִיגַת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וְאַחַת חֲגִיגַת חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְזוֹ לְבוֹקְרָהּ וְזוֹ לְבוֹקְרָהּ.
The Master said above in the baraita: Or perhaps it is only the first morning. The Gemara asks: But you already said that when it says that any offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight until the morning,” the extra phrase “until the morning” indicates that the verse speaks of the second morning. What need is there then to prove this a second time? The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: Or perhaps it is only that the verse is speaking about two different Festival peace-offerings, one being the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth and one the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, and the halakha is that this, the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, may be eaten for only a day and a night until its morning, the morning of the fifteenth, and this, the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, may be eaten for only a day and a night until its morning, the sixteenth of Nisan.
הֲדַר אָמַר: אֶלָּא דְּקַיְימָא לַן חֲגִיגָה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וָלַיְלָה אֶחָד. אִם כֵּן: ״אִם נֶדֶר אוֹ נְדָבָה״ בְּמַאי? אִי חֲגִיגַת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, הָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ יוֹם וָלַיְלָה! אִי חֲגִיגַת חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, הָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ יוֹם וָלַיְלָה!
It then says: But with regard to that which we maintain, that a Festival peace-offering may be eaten for two days and one night, if so, the verse that addresses a peace-offering and says: “But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow or a free-will offering,” with regard to what case is it discussing? If it is talking about the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, surely it is written about it, according to this interpretation, that it is eaten for only a day and a night. And if it is talking about the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, surely it is written about it that it too is eaten for only a day and a night.
אֶלָּא, הַאי לַחֲגִיגַת חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְהַאיְךְ כּוּלֵּיהּ קְרָא לַחֲגִיגַת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, לִימֵּד עַל חֲגִיגַת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁנֶּאֱכֶלֶת לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וָלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
Rather, this verse that discusses a vow or free-will offering clearly must be discussing the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, and the entire other verse: “Nor shall…remain overnight until the morning,” is referring to the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth and thus has taught that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is eaten for two days and one night.
טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן לַבֹּקֶר״, דְּמַאי ״בֹּקֶר״ — בֹּקֶר שֵׁנִי. הָא כׇּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב בֹּקֶר סְתָמָא — בֹּקֶר רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא כְּתַב בֵּיהּ ״רֵאשִׁית״.
The Gemara returns to what it wanted to prove with regard to the term “first”: The reason is that it is written that an offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight until the morning,” for what is the implication of the word morning? The second morning. We can infer from here that wherever the term morning is written unmodified and without further specification, it is referring to the first morning after the offering was sacrificed, even though the word “first” is not written in relation to “morning.” Thus, Rav Kahana’s derivation from the word “first” was unnecessary.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב עָלָיו חַטָּאת.
MISHNA: A Paschal lamb that one slaughtered for a different purpose on Shabbat, not knowing that it is prohibited for him to do so, is disqualified, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for it because he unwittingly performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat.
וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח, אִם אֵינָן רְאוּיִין — חַיָּיב, וְאִם רְאוּיִין הֵן — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר.
As for all other offerings, such as a peace-offering, that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, e.g., if they were female or cattle or more than a year old and clearly ineligible for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Because he did not fulfill the mitzva to bring a Paschal offering, his act of slaughter was therefore unnecessary. And if they were fit, Rabbi Eliezer nevertheless deems him liable to bring a sin-offering for his unwitting transgression. But Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him, because he maintains that if someone intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error he in fact performed a mitzva, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. And in this case he performed a mitzva, because offerings that are sacrificed for a different purpose are still fit.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מָה אִם הַפֶּסַח שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לִשְׁמוֹ, כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמוֹ — חַיָּיב, זְבָחִים שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין לִשְׁמָן, כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָן — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּיב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לָא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּפֶּסַח שֶׁשִּׁינָּהוּ בְּדָבָר אָסוּר, תֹּאמַר בִּזְבָחִים שֶׁשִּׁינָּן בְּדָבָר הַמּוּתָּר.
Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: If, with regard to the Paschal lamb, which is permitted to be slaughtered on Shabbat for its own purpose, when one changed its purpose he is nevertheless liable, then, with regard to other offerings that are forbidden to be slaughtered on Shabbat even for their own purpose, when one changed their purpose, is it not right that he should be liable? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, this reasoning is faulty. If you say that one is liable to bring a sin-offering if he slaughtered a Paschal lamb for a different purpose, it is because he changed its purpose for something forbidden, as the offering he intended it to be may not be slaughtered on Shabbat. But can you necessarily say the same thing about other offerings that he slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering and thus changed their purpose for something that is permitted to be sacrificed on Shabbat?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: אֵימוּרֵי צִיבּוּר יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁהֵן מוּתָּרִין לִשְׁמָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט לִשְׁמָן חַיָּיב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּאֵימוּרֵי צִיבּוּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן קִצְבָה, תֹּאמַר בַּפֶּסַח שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה.
Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Let the communal offerings, such as the daily offering and the additional-offerings of Shabbat and the Festivals, prove the matter, for they are permitted to be slaughtered on Shabbat for their own purpose, and nevertheless, one who unnecessarily slaughters a different offering for their purpose is liable. This indicates that even when a particular offering may be slaughtered, one is nevertheless liable if he slaughtered a different offering for the purpose of the permitted offering. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say this halakha with regard to communal offerings, it is because they have a limit, as there is a specific number of communal offerings that must be offered on any particular day and there is no reason one would mistakenly sacrifice extra offerings for this purpose. But can you necessarily say the same thing about the Paschal lamb, which does not have a limit, making it more likely for someone to make a mistake?
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם אֵימוּרֵי צִיבּוּר — פָּטוּר.
Rabbi Meir says: According to Rabbi Yehoshua, even one who unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings beyond their daily limit is exempt for the same reason, i.e., that he intended to fulfill a mitzva that is permitted on Shabbat.
שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָו, לַעֲרֵלִין וְלִטְמֵאִין — חַיָּיב. לְאוֹכְלָיו וְשֶׁלֹּא לְאוֹכְלָיו, לִמְנוּיָו וְשֶׁלֹּא לִמְנוּיָו, לְמוּלִין וְלַעֲרֵלִים, לִטְמֵאִין וְלִטְהוֹרִין — פָּטוּר.
The mishna continues with another halakha with regard to the Paschal lamb: If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and mistakenly intended it for those who cannot eat it, such as sick or elderly people who are unable to eat the meat, or for those who did not register for it, or for the sake of the uncircumcised or for those ritually impure, the offering is disqualified and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for his unnecessary act of slaughter. If, however, he slaughtered it for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, or for those who registered for it and for those who did not register for it, or for the circumcised and for those who are uncircumcised, or for those who are ritually impure and those who are ritually pure, he is exempt. Since a Paschal lamb slaughtered with dual intentions of these types is valid, the act of slaughter was justified.
שְׁחָטוֹ וְנִמְצָא בַּעַל מוּם — חַיָּיב. שְׁחָטוֹ וְנִמְצָא טְרֵיפָה בַּסֵּתֶר — פָּטוּר.
If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish, the offering is disqualified, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having unwittingly performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat, as he should have examined the animal before it was slaughtered. If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a hidden condition that would cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] and that could not have been discovered before the slaughter even if it were examined properly, the offering is disqualified, but he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This is not a case of shogeg, unwitting violation of Shabbat, but rather of ones, an unavoidable accident.
שְׁחָטוֹ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁמָּשְׁכוּ הַבְּעָלִים אֶת יָדָם, אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ — פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשָּׁחַט בִּרְשׁוּת.
If he slaughtered it and afterward it became known that the owners had withdrawn from it and registered for a different Paschal lamb, in which case this one was slaughtered unnecessarily, as no one was registered for it, or it became known that they had died or became ritually impure, in all these cases he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he slaughtered with permission. At the time of the slaughter, he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the offering would be disqualified.
