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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 1, 2021 | 讬状讟 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 72

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Shira Krebs to mark the completion of shloshim for her father in law, Eliezer ben Dov v’Rachel, “who never stopped engaging our multifaceted Jewish tradition and who always appreciated a good debate.” And by Jennifer Lankin in honor of Marilyn Kaiman, with love from her granddaughters who are consistently inspired by her dedication to gemara learning. “May we celebrate the next daf yomi siyum together be’ezrat Hashem.” And by Gitta Neufeld in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber, her teacher, mentor and friend on her birthday. “May you be blessed with many years of health, wisdom and nachat from your family and your students. 讞讬诇讱 诇讗讜专讬讬转讗.”

Is the beginning of the mishna referring to a case where one intentionally changed the sacrifice or unintentionally. In the end, it is concluded that the first case was intentional and the next case in the mishna is unintentional.聽 The gemara raises some questions on that interpretation. Rabbi Yehoshua claims in the mishna that something that is limited we would be more strict with and make the sinner liable. This doesn’t hold true in the circumcision case where it is also limited. The gemara explains how the cases differ. Which tana is our mishna said according to regarding the distinction between a case where the animal could have been used for a Pesach offering and one where the animal could not have been used? Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan bring other cases where one would be liable or exempt regarding a mistake. Does Rabbi Yochanan disagree with Reish Lakish or is he adding? What is the distinction between the cases that Rabbi Yochanan brings? On which tannaitic opinion is he relying? The gemara raises several possibilities but all are rejected.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讟讜注讛 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 注拽讬专讛 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬讗 注拽讬专讛 讗诇讗 讘注讜拽专


GEMARA: When the mishna speaks of one who slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat for a different purpose, with what precisely are we dealing? If you say we are dealing with one who erred in that he actually thought this was a different offering and not a Paschal offering, learn from it, i.e., from the fact that the offering is disqualified and he is therefore liable to bring a sin-offering, that the erroneous uprooting of the status of an offering constitutes uprooting, even though he had no intention to do so. It would, however, be surprising to find the mishna taking a stand on this issue, as we find elsewhere that it is the subject of an amoraic dispute (Tosafot). Rather, the mishna must certainly be referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal鈥檚 designation as a Paschal lamb and offered it as a different offering.


讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 诇砖讜诐 讛驻住讞 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 专讗讜讬讬谉 讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专 讜讗讬 讘注讜拽专 诪讛 诇讬 专讗讜讬讬谉 诪讛 诇讬 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉


If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: As for all other offerings that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. And if they are fit, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. Now if the mishna is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the original designation of the animal, which he knew was not a Paschal offering, what does it matter to me whether the animal was fit or unfit? He certainly does not think that he is performing a mitzva; why then does Rabbi Yehoshua exempt him from bringing a sin-offering?


讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讟讜注讛 专讬砖讗 讘注讜拽专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜注讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讘注讜拽专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜注讛


Rather, it is obvious that we must be dealing with one who erred. But if so, we have a contradiction in the mishna, as the first clause is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal鈥檚 designation, whereas the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it. Rabbi Avin said: Yes, we must accept this conclusion even though it is unusual: The first clause deals with one who uprooted the animal鈥檚 designation, whereas the latter clause deals with one who erred about it.


讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讜住讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讘注讜拽专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜注讛 转谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗专讘注讬谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讜讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞讗 讘讻讬住讬讛


The Gemara relates that Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef once found Rabbi Abbahu standing among a multitude [okhlosa] of people, and he said to him: What is the meaning of our mishna? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The first clause is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal鈥檚 status, whereas the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it. Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef learned this statement from him forty times, and it seemed to him as though it were resting in his pouch; i.e., he repeated it many times until the mishna became crystal clear to him and etched in his memory.


转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛 讗诐 驻住讞 砖诪讜转专 诇砖诪讜 讻砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讜 讞讬讬讘 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诇砖诪谉 讻砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 讚专讬砖讗 讘注讜拽专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜注讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty with this understanding of the mishna: We learned in the continuation of the mishna that 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 he changed their purpose is it not right that he should be liable? And if it is so that the two parts of the mishna are not talking about the same case, surely they are not similar and cannot be compared; as the first clause is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal鈥檚 status, whereas the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it.


诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬


The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Eliezer, who put forward this a fortiori argument, there is no difference, for in his opinion someone who erred while intending to perform a mitzva is liable to bring a sin-offering, even if he made a reasonable mistake. Thus, he does not differentiate between the deliberate uprooting of the animal鈥檚 status and the erroneous sacrificing of the offering for a different purpose. The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehoshua, for whom there is a difference between the two cases, let him answer Rabbi Eliezer in this way, that the first clause of the mishna is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the status of an offering, while the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it. Why does he introduce another factor, that in the first clause he changed the animal鈥檚 purpose for something forbidden, whereas in the latter clause he changed it for something permitted?


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讗 讚诪讬 专讬砖讗 讘注讜拽专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜注讛 诇讚讬讚讱 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘驻住讞 砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讜 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 转讗诪专 讘讝讘讞讬诐 砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪谉 诇讚讘专 讛诪讜转专


The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: According to me, these cases are not comparable, because the first clause deals with one who intentionally uprooted the animal鈥檚 designation, whereas the latter clause deals with one who erred about it. However, even according to you, who do not differentiate in this manner, I can still answer as follows: No, if you say that one is liable if he slaughtered a Paschal lamb for a different purpose, it is because he changed its purpose for something prohibited. But can you say the same thing about other offerings that he slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering and thus changed their purpose for something permitted?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讛砖讜讞讟 诇砖诪谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 砖讻谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽爪讘讛 转讗诪专 讘驻住讞 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛


The mishna continues with what Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Let the communal offerings prove the matter, for they are permitted for slaughter on Shabbat for their own purpose, and nevertheless, one who unnecessarily slaughters different offerings for their purpose is liable. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you said this halakha with regard to communal offerings, it is because they have a limit. But can you necessarily say the same thing with regard to the Paschal lamb, which does not have a limit?


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽爪讘讛 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讛专讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讚讬砖 诇讛谉 拽爪讘讛 讜转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇讜 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇讜 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that wherever there is a limit, Rabbi Yehoshua deems liable one who erred while intending to perform a mitzva? But with regard to the circumcision of babies on Shabbat, which has a limit, we nevertheless learned in a mishna that with regard to one who had two babies to circumcise, one of whom he needed to circumcise after Shabbat and one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. This is because he performed the prohibited labor of causing a wound not in the framework of performing a mitzva, as no obligation yet existed to circumcise the child.


讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


If, however, there were two babies, one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat eve, and one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that he should have circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering. As circumcision after its appointed time does not override Shabbat, he has therefore unwittingly violated Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. Since he intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error in fact performed a mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Thus, we see that even though there is a limit in the case of the babies, Rabbi Yehoshua nevertheless exempts one who errs while intending to perform a mitzva.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚诐 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讱 讚砖讘转 讚讟专讬讚 讘讬讛 讛讻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚诐 讜砖讞讟讬谞讛讜 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 讘专讬砖讗


Rabbi Ami said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the circumciser first unwittingly circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, when there is still this other baby who should be circumcised on Shabbat with whom he is preoccupied. Since he was legitimately preoccupied with a mitzva, as he knew that there was a baby that needed to be circumcised, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Here, however, with regard to offerings, we are dealing with a case where he first slaughtered the required communal offerings at the beginning, so that there was no need to slaughter any more offerings, as communal offerings have a limit. Since he had no reason to make a mistake, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having unnecessarily slaughtered an animal on Shabbat.


讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛砖讜讞讟 诇砖诐 讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 驻讟讜专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讚讬诐 讜砖讞讟讬谞讛讜 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 [诪讗讘诇 注专讘] 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讚讞讬讬讘


The Gemara asks: If so, how do we understand the continuation of the mishna, where Rabbi Meir says that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, even one who unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings beyond their daily limit is exempt? According to our explanation, this must be true even though he first slaughtered the required communal offerings at the beginning. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya from the village of Avel Arav teach in a baraita another version of the dispute, according to which Rabbi Meir said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.


讜转住讘专讗 诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 驻讟专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 诪讞讬讬讘


The Gemara expresses surprise: And how can you understand this baraita in its current formulation? If there, in the latter clause, where he circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, so that he did not perform a mitzva because the baby was not yet eight days old and the mitzva did not yet apply, Rabbi Yehoshua nevertheless exempted him because he erred while intending to perform a mitzva. Then where he did perform a mitzva, i.e., where he circumcised a baby on Shabbat who was already eight days old before Shabbat and to whom the mitzva of circumcision applied, would Rabbi Yehoshua deem him liable?


讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 专讬砖讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚诐 讜诪诇 砖诇 砖讘转 讘注专讘 砖讘转


The Rabbis of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The first clause of the baraita is referring to a unique situation, where the circumciser first unwittingly circumcised on Shabbat eve the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat.


砖诇讗 谞转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讚讞讜转 [讜住讬驻讗 谞转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讚讞讜转 讗爪诇讜]


In that case, Shabbat does not stand to be overridden at all. Since the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat was already circumcised, and the only one left is the baby who should have been circumcised on Friday, the circumciser should have known that he has no circumcisions to perform on Shabbat, because a circumcision that was delayed beyond the eighth day does not override Shabbat. Therefore, he is liable if he performed the circumcision on Shabbat. In the latter clause, however, the circumcision was performed in a situation where Shabbat stands to be overridden for him, as the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat was not yet circumcised.


讛讻讗 讛专讬 谞转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讚讞讜转 讗爪诇 拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专


Based on the understanding that everything depends on whether or not Shabbat stands to be overridden, it may be argued that here too, Shabbat stands to be overridden with regard to a communal offering. Therefore, one who on Shabbat unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he knows that communal offerings must be brought on Shabbat, and consequently there is some justification for his error.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛专讬 谞转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讚讞讜转 讗爪诇 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪讬讛转 诇讗 讗讬转讬讛讬讘:


Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana that this explanation is difficult: Here too, it may be argued that Shabbat stands to be overridden with regard to babies in general, as it is permitted to circumcise a baby whose eighth day occurs on Shabbat, and so there is some minimal justification for his mistake. Rav Kahana said to him: That is indeed so. However, with regard to this person, Shabbat does not stand to be overridden, as there is no longer any child who is supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat. Therefore, if he unwittingly performed a circumcision on Shabbat, it is not considered as if he performed a transgression while preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva.


讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 诇砖讜诐 驻住讞 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 专讗讜讬讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专: 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉


We learned in the mishna with regard to all other offerings that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, that if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if they were fit, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that distinguishes between offerings that are fit for the Paschal lamb and those that are not fit?


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 讜讗讞讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 讜讻谉 讛砖讜讞讟 诇砖诐 讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 驻讟讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


The Gemara explains: It is Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita: If one unwittingly slaughters other offerings on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, whether they are offerings that are fit for the Paschal lamb or they are offerings that are not fit, and similarly, if he unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings on Shabbat, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree about one who slaughtered offerings that are not fit, for in that case all agree that he is liable. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who slaughtered offerings that are fit, for Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. This indicates that the unattributed ruling of our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讜讟专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讙诇 砖诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟讜 诇砖讜诐 讛驻住讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘 讘讬讘讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讟专讬讚 讘讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讟专讬讚 讘讬讛


Rav Beivai said that Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Meir would exempt him even in the case of a calf of a peace-offering that he slaughtered for the purpose of the Paschal offering, even though one does not ordinarily mistake a calf for a lamb. Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Beivai: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that Rabbi Meir conceded that if one slaughtered blemished animals on Shabbat he is liable to bring a sin-offering? He said to him: With regard to blemished animals, he is not at all preoccupied with them, because he knows that they are ineligible to be offered as sacrifices. But as for this calf, he is preoccupied with sacrificing it as an offering, and he may therefore make a mistake.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讜诇讬谉 诇砖讜诐 驻住讞 诪讗讬 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜讟专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜诇讬谉 诇砖讜诐 驻住讞


Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: If one unwittingly slaughtered an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering, what would Rabbi Meir say? Would he exempt him in this case as well? Rav Na岣an said to him: Rabbi Meir would exempt him even if he slaughtered an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讗 诪讬讞诇驻讬 讛谞讬 诪讬讞诇驻讬


Rava asked him: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that Rabbi Meir concedes that if one slaughtered blemished animals on Shabbat he is liable to bring a sin-offering, as they are never sacrificed as offerings, and similarly, unconsecrated animals are never sacrificed as offerings? Rav Na岣an responded: There is room for a distinction. Blemished animals cannot be confused with unblemished ones, and so there is no legitimate reason for error; but these, i.e., unconsecrated animals, can easily be confused with consecrated animals, as they are externally indistinguishable from one another, and therefore one who confuses them is exempt.


讜讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讜诇讗 讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讜讟专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讙诇 砖诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟讜 诇砖讜诐 讛驻住讞 讗诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚讟专讬讚


Rava asked further: And is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason really that these can be confused and these cannot be confused with a legitimate offering? But didn鈥檛 Rav Beivai say that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Meir would exempt him even in the case of a calf of a peace-offering that he slaughtered for the purpose of the Paschal offering, even though there is no way to mistake a calf for an animal that can be brought for the Paschal offering? Therefore, it is apparent that Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason is that he is preoccupied with sacrificing the calf as an offering, and consequently he is exempt if he erred and slaughtered it for the purpose of a Paschal lamb. But why should one be exempt if he brought an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering? He is not preoccupied with bringing it as an offering.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟专讬讚 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讞诇祝 诪讞诇祝 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讟专讬讚 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讚诇讗 讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 诪讞诇祝 讜诇讗 诪讟专讬讚 讟专讬讚


Rav Na岣an said to him: Both reasons apply according to Rabbi Meir. If one is preoccupied with bringing the animal as an offering, he is exempt even though the animal cannot easily be confused with the one he was supposed to sacrifice. And when the animal can easily be confused with the one set aside as an offering, he is exempt, even though he is not preoccupied with bringing it as an offering. This comes to exclude blemished animals, which cannot be confused with unblemished animals and with whose sacrifice he is not preoccupied.


讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗 讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 谞转讞诇祝 诇讜 砖驻讜讚 砖诇 谞讜转专 讘砖驻讜讚 砖诇 爪诇讬 讜讗讻诇讜 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k were sitting on the porch of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k, and they sat and said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: If one unwittingly confused a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, which it is prohibited to eat and which makes one liable to receive the punishment of karet when one eats it intentionally, with a spit of roasted sacrificial meat, which is a mitzva to eat, and he ate it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Although he intended to do a mitzva, since he unwittingly transgressed the prohibition against eating leftover sacrificial meat, he must bring a sin-offering.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗砖转讜 谞讚讛 讘注诇 讞讬讬讘 讬讘诪转讜 谞讚讛 讘注诇 驻讟讜专


And they further reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But if he unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law who was waiting to become his wife through levirate marriage while she was menstruating, he is exempt, because the act of intercourse itself is a mitzva. A man whose brother died without children is obliged by Torah law to marry his deceased brother鈥檚 widow and 鈥渃ome to her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), so that even if he mistakenly transgressed while attempting to fulfill the mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讛讛讬讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讚诇讗 注砖讛 诪爪讜讛


The Gemara attempts to determine whether Rabbi Yo岣nan agrees or disagrees with Reish Lakish鈥檚 ruling: Some say that all the more so in the first case, where one unwittingly ate a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, Rabbi Yo岣nan would deem him liable to bring a sin-offering, for he did not actually perform a mitzva when he ate the meat, even though he intended to do so. This stands in contrast to the second case, where the person unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, where he at least performed a small mitzva, as will be explained shortly.


讗讬转 讚讗诪专讬 讘讛讛讬讗 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇砖讬讜诇讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇砖讬讜诇讬 诇讗


Others say that according to Rabbi Yo岣nan in that case where one ate leftover sacrificial meat, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. What is the reason? There, where he had sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable, for he should have asked her if she was menstruating, and because he failed to do so he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But here, where he ate a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, he did not have anyone to ask, and so he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬讘诪转讜 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 讗砖转讜 谞诪讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 讘讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转


The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is different about one who unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law, in that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering? Is it that he performed a mitzva, i.e., the mitzva of levirate marriage? If so, then also in the case where he unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he performed a mitzva, for he occupied himself in the fulfillment of the mitzva of procreation. The Gemara answers that we are dealing here with a case where his wife is pregnant, such that intercourse cannot lead to procreation.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖诪讞转 注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 注讜谞转讛


The Gemara raises another question: Nevertheless, there is the mitzva of the enjoyment of conjugal rights. One of a husband鈥檚 marital obligations is to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife at regular intervals (see Exodus 21:10), and this is considered a mitzva. The Gemara answers that we are talking about a case where it is not the time of her conjugal rights.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇砖诪讞 讗砖转讜 讘讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 住诪讜讱 诇讜讜住转讛


The Gemara asks further: Even so, didn鈥檛 Rava say that a man is obligated to please his wife through a mitzva? That is to say, he must engage in sexual intercourse with her when she so desires, even if it is not the time of her conjugal rights. The Gemara answers that we are dealing with a case where it was near her expected date of menstruation, when sexual relations are prohibited due to a concern that the woman may already be menstruating or that she may begin to menstruate during the sexual act.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讘诪转讜 谞诪讬 讬讘诪转讜 讘讝讬讝 诪讬谞讛 讗砖转讜 诇讗 讘讝讬讝 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if they engaged in sexual intercourse near the woman鈥檚 expected date of menstruation when he should have refrained from doing so, then even in the case where he had sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law and she turned out to be menstruating, he should also be liable, as the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply at that time. The Gemara explains that with regard to his sister-in-law, he is still shy [bazeiz] in front of her and uncomfortable asking her whether she is close to her expected menstruation date, whereas with regard to his wife, he is not shy in front of her, and so he should have asked her.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗 讘专砖讜转


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, in accordance with whose opinion did he rule with regard to one who erred while engaged in a mitzva? If you say he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: If the first Festival day of the festival of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried his lulav out into the public domain and continued to transport it there, unwittingly performing a prohibited labor, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. That is because he carried it out with permission, that is to say, he was acting with the intention of fulfilling a mitzva.


讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇


There is room to differentiate between Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 ruling and that of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Perhaps it is different there, as he is pressed for time. Since by Torah law the mitzva of lulav applies only one day a year, he is anxious to fulfill the mitzva and therefore does not realize that he is violating a Torah prohibition. This is unlike the case of levirate marriage, which need not be performed at any specific time and about which he is less pressured.


讜讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讝讘讞讬诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇


Rather, one might say that Rabbi Yo岣nan issued his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in our mishna with regard to offerings, for according to Rabbi Yehoshua, one who unwittingly slaughtered another offering on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, and the animal was fit to be brought as a Paschal offering, is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Here too, however, there is room to differentiate. Perhaps there also we can say that Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because he is pressed for time.


讜讗诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚转讬谞讜拽讜转 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇


Rather, one might say that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to babies, one that should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve and the other on Shabbat, and the circumciser forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat. In that case the circumciser is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. But once again there is room to differentiate: Perhaps there too, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because he is pressed for time.


讜讗诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚转专讜诪讛 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜谞讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


Rather, we should say that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to teruma, as we learned in a mishna: If a priest was eating teruma, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a woman who underwent 岣litza and he is therefore disqualified from the priesthood and may not eat teruma, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to pay the value of the principal and an additional fifth, like any non-priest who unwittingly ate teruma, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. In this case, one who thought he was a priest and therefore fulfilling a mitzva when he ate the teruma was actually committing a transgression, but nevertheless, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him from the ordinary penalty. On the face of it, this is similar to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling.


讚讬诇诪讗 讻讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讘注专讘 讛驻住讞 讚讝诪谞讛 讘讛讜诇


This comparison can, however, be rejected, for perhaps that case should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Beivai bar Abaye. For Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: The mishna is talking about a disqualified priest who ate teruma which is leaven on the eve of Passover, whose time is pressing, because if he does not eat it quickly he will have to burn it.


讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讗谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讬拽专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻砖专


Alternatively, there may be another reason to differentiate: Eating teruma is different, because it is called sacred service, and the Merciful One validates service performed by someone of priestly descent even if he is not fit for the priesthood.


讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪拽专讬讘 讜谞讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讻诇 讛拽专讘谞讜转 讻讜诇谉 砖讛拽专讬讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讻砖讬专 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讻转讬讘 讘专讱 讛壮 讞讬诇讜 讜驻注诇 讬讚讬讜 转专爪讛


As we learned in a mishna: If a priest was standing and sacrificing offerings on the altar, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a woman who underwent 岣litza, all the offerings that he offered on the altar until that time are disqualified, because only service performed by a priest deemed fit is acceptable. And Rabbi Yehoshua validates them. And we said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua? As it is written with regard to the tribe of Levi: 鈥淏less, Lord, his substance and accept the work of his hands鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:11), which teaches that after the fact, God accepts the work of a priest鈥檚 hands, even if it becomes clear that he was actually disqualified at the time he performed the service.


讜转专讜诪讛 讛讬讻讗 讗讬拽专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 砖诇讗 讘讗 讗诪砖 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 诇砖讞专讬转 诪爪讗讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讘讗转 讗诪砖 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗诪专 诇讜 注讘讜讚讛 注讘讚转讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇 讚讘专讬讱 讗讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬 转讬诪讛 讜讻讬 注讘讜讚讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专


The Gemara questions what was stated above: And where is teruma called service? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Tarfon, who did not come in the evening to the study hall. In the morning, Rabban Gamliel found him and said to him: For what reason did you not come in the evening to the study hall? He said to him: I was performing sacred service. He said to him: All your words are astonishing; from where do we have service in this time after the destruction of the Temple? He said to him: It says in Scripture:


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 72: To Err Is Human (But Sometimes, There’s No Good Excuse)

The Gemara raises one model of a case, following on the positions of the mishnah,that then is applied to several...

Pesachim 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 72

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讟讜注讛 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 注拽讬专讛 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬讗 注拽讬专讛 讗诇讗 讘注讜拽专


GEMARA: When the mishna speaks of one who slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat for a different purpose, with what precisely are we dealing? If you say we are dealing with one who erred in that he actually thought this was a different offering and not a Paschal offering, learn from it, i.e., from the fact that the offering is disqualified and he is therefore liable to bring a sin-offering, that the erroneous uprooting of the status of an offering constitutes uprooting, even though he had no intention to do so. It would, however, be surprising to find the mishna taking a stand on this issue, as we find elsewhere that it is the subject of an amoraic dispute (Tosafot). Rather, the mishna must certainly be referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal鈥檚 designation as a Paschal lamb and offered it as a different offering.


讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 诇砖讜诐 讛驻住讞 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 专讗讜讬讬谉 讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专 讜讗讬 讘注讜拽专 诪讛 诇讬 专讗讜讬讬谉 诪讛 诇讬 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉


If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: As for all other offerings that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. And if they are fit, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. Now if the mishna is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the original designation of the animal, which he knew was not a Paschal offering, what does it matter to me whether the animal was fit or unfit? He certainly does not think that he is performing a mitzva; why then does Rabbi Yehoshua exempt him from bringing a sin-offering?


讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讟讜注讛 专讬砖讗 讘注讜拽专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜注讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讘注讜拽专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜注讛


Rather, it is obvious that we must be dealing with one who erred. But if so, we have a contradiction in the mishna, as the first clause is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal鈥檚 designation, whereas the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it. Rabbi Avin said: Yes, we must accept this conclusion even though it is unusual: The first clause deals with one who uprooted the animal鈥檚 designation, whereas the latter clause deals with one who erred about it.


讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讜住讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讘注讜拽专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜注讛 转谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗专讘注讬谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讜讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞讗 讘讻讬住讬讛


The Gemara relates that Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef once found Rabbi Abbahu standing among a multitude [okhlosa] of people, and he said to him: What is the meaning of our mishna? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The first clause is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal鈥檚 status, whereas the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it. Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef learned this statement from him forty times, and it seemed to him as though it were resting in his pouch; i.e., he repeated it many times until the mishna became crystal clear to him and etched in his memory.


转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛 讗诐 驻住讞 砖诪讜转专 诇砖诪讜 讻砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讜 讞讬讬讘 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诇砖诪谉 讻砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 讚专讬砖讗 讘注讜拽专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜注讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty with this understanding of the mishna: We learned in the continuation of the mishna that 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 he changed their purpose is it not right that he should be liable? And if it is so that the two parts of the mishna are not talking about the same case, surely they are not similar and cannot be compared; as the first clause is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the animal鈥檚 status, whereas the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it.


诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬


The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Eliezer, who put forward this a fortiori argument, there is no difference, for in his opinion someone who erred while intending to perform a mitzva is liable to bring a sin-offering, even if he made a reasonable mistake. Thus, he does not differentiate between the deliberate uprooting of the animal鈥檚 status and the erroneous sacrificing of the offering for a different purpose. The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehoshua, for whom there is a difference between the two cases, let him answer Rabbi Eliezer in this way, that the first clause of the mishna is referring to one who intentionally uprooted the status of an offering, while the latter clause is referring to one who erred about it. Why does he introduce another factor, that in the first clause he changed the animal鈥檚 purpose for something forbidden, whereas in the latter clause he changed it for something permitted?


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讗 讚诪讬 专讬砖讗 讘注讜拽专 讜住讬驻讗 讘讟讜注讛 诇讚讬讚讱 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘驻住讞 砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪讜 诇讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 转讗诪专 讘讝讘讞讬诐 砖砖讬谞讛 讗转 砖诪谉 诇讚讘专 讛诪讜转专


The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: According to me, these cases are not comparable, because the first clause deals with one who intentionally uprooted the animal鈥檚 designation, whereas the latter clause deals with one who erred about it. However, even according to you, who do not differentiate in this manner, I can still answer as follows: No, if you say that one is liable if he slaughtered a Paschal lamb for a different purpose, it is because he changed its purpose for something prohibited. But can you say the same thing about other offerings that he slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering and thus changed their purpose for something permitted?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讛砖讜讞讟 诇砖诪谉 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 砖讻谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽爪讘讛 转讗诪专 讘驻住讞 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛


The mishna continues with what Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Let the communal offerings prove the matter, for they are permitted for slaughter on Shabbat for their own purpose, and nevertheless, one who unnecessarily slaughters different offerings for their purpose is liable. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you said this halakha with regard to communal offerings, it is because they have a limit. But can you necessarily say the same thing with regard to the Paschal lamb, which does not have a limit?


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽爪讘讛 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讛专讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讚讬砖 诇讛谉 拽爪讘讛 讜转谞谉 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇讜 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇讜 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that wherever there is a limit, Rabbi Yehoshua deems liable one who erred while intending to perform a mitzva? But with regard to the circumcision of babies on Shabbat, which has a limit, we nevertheless learned in a mishna that with regard to one who had two babies to circumcise, one of whom he needed to circumcise after Shabbat and one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. This is because he performed the prohibited labor of causing a wound not in the framework of performing a mitzva, as no obligation yet existed to circumcise the child.


讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


If, however, there were two babies, one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat eve, and one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that he should have circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering. As circumcision after its appointed time does not override Shabbat, he has therefore unwittingly violated Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. Since he intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error in fact performed a mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Thus, we see that even though there is a limit in the case of the babies, Rabbi Yehoshua nevertheless exempts one who errs while intending to perform a mitzva.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚诐 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讱 讚砖讘转 讚讟专讬讚 讘讬讛 讛讻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚诐 讜砖讞讟讬谞讛讜 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 讘专讬砖讗


Rabbi Ami said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the circumciser first unwittingly circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, when there is still this other baby who should be circumcised on Shabbat with whom he is preoccupied. Since he was legitimately preoccupied with a mitzva, as he knew that there was a baby that needed to be circumcised, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Here, however, with regard to offerings, we are dealing with a case where he first slaughtered the required communal offerings at the beginning, so that there was no need to slaughter any more offerings, as communal offerings have a limit. Since he had no reason to make a mistake, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having unnecessarily slaughtered an animal on Shabbat.


讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛砖讜讞讟 诇砖诐 讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 驻讟讜专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讚讬诐 讜砖讞讟讬谞讛讜 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 [诪讗讘诇 注专讘] 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讚讞讬讬讘


The Gemara asks: If so, how do we understand the continuation of the mishna, where Rabbi Meir says that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, even one who unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings beyond their daily limit is exempt? According to our explanation, this must be true even though he first slaughtered the required communal offerings at the beginning. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya from the village of Avel Arav teach in a baraita another version of the dispute, according to which Rabbi Meir said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.


讜转住讘专讗 诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 驻讟专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 诪讞讬讬讘


The Gemara expresses surprise: And how can you understand this baraita in its current formulation? If there, in the latter clause, where he circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, so that he did not perform a mitzva because the baby was not yet eight days old and the mitzva did not yet apply, Rabbi Yehoshua nevertheless exempted him because he erred while intending to perform a mitzva. Then where he did perform a mitzva, i.e., where he circumcised a baby on Shabbat who was already eight days old before Shabbat and to whom the mitzva of circumcision applied, would Rabbi Yehoshua deem him liable?


讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 专讬砖讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚诐 讜诪诇 砖诇 砖讘转 讘注专讘 砖讘转


The Rabbis of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The first clause of the baraita is referring to a unique situation, where the circumciser first unwittingly circumcised on Shabbat eve the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat.


砖诇讗 谞转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讚讞讜转 [讜住讬驻讗 谞转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讚讞讜转 讗爪诇讜]


In that case, Shabbat does not stand to be overridden at all. Since the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat was already circumcised, and the only one left is the baby who should have been circumcised on Friday, the circumciser should have known that he has no circumcisions to perform on Shabbat, because a circumcision that was delayed beyond the eighth day does not override Shabbat. Therefore, he is liable if he performed the circumcision on Shabbat. In the latter clause, however, the circumcision was performed in a situation where Shabbat stands to be overridden for him, as the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat was not yet circumcised.


讛讻讗 讛专讬 谞转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讚讞讜转 讗爪诇 拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专


Based on the understanding that everything depends on whether or not Shabbat stands to be overridden, it may be argued that here too, Shabbat stands to be overridden with regard to a communal offering. Therefore, one who on Shabbat unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he knows that communal offerings must be brought on Shabbat, and consequently there is some justification for his error.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛专讬 谞转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讚讞讜转 讗爪诇 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪讬讛转 诇讗 讗讬转讬讛讬讘:


Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana that this explanation is difficult: Here too, it may be argued that Shabbat stands to be overridden with regard to babies in general, as it is permitted to circumcise a baby whose eighth day occurs on Shabbat, and so there is some minimal justification for his mistake. Rav Kahana said to him: That is indeed so. However, with regard to this person, Shabbat does not stand to be overridden, as there is no longer any child who is supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat. Therefore, if he unwittingly performed a circumcision on Shabbat, it is not considered as if he performed a transgression while preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva.


讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 诇砖讜诐 驻住讞 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 专讗讜讬讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专: 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉


We learned in the mishna with regard to all other offerings that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, that if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if they were fit, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that distinguishes between offerings that are fit for the Paschal lamb and those that are not fit?


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 讜讗讞讚 讝讘讞讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 讜讻谉 讛砖讜讞讟 诇砖诐 讗讬诪讜专讬 爪讬讘讜专 驻讟讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


The Gemara explains: It is Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita: If one unwittingly slaughters other offerings on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, whether they are offerings that are fit for the Paschal lamb or they are offerings that are not fit, and similarly, if he unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings on Shabbat, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree about one who slaughtered offerings that are not fit, for in that case all agree that he is liable. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who slaughtered offerings that are fit, for Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. This indicates that the unattributed ruling of our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讜讟专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讙诇 砖诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟讜 诇砖讜诐 讛驻住讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘 讘讬讘讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讟专讬讚 讘讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讟专讬讚 讘讬讛


Rav Beivai said that Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Meir would exempt him even in the case of a calf of a peace-offering that he slaughtered for the purpose of the Paschal offering, even though one does not ordinarily mistake a calf for a lamb. Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Beivai: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that Rabbi Meir conceded that if one slaughtered blemished animals on Shabbat he is liable to bring a sin-offering? He said to him: With regard to blemished animals, he is not at all preoccupied with them, because he knows that they are ineligible to be offered as sacrifices. But as for this calf, he is preoccupied with sacrificing it as an offering, and he may therefore make a mistake.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讜诇讬谉 诇砖讜诐 驻住讞 诪讗讬 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜讟专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜诇讬谉 诇砖讜诐 驻住讞


Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: If one unwittingly slaughtered an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering, what would Rabbi Meir say? Would he exempt him in this case as well? Rav Na岣an said to him: Rabbi Meir would exempt him even if he slaughtered an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讗 诪讬讞诇驻讬 讛谞讬 诪讬讞诇驻讬


Rava asked him: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that Rabbi Meir concedes that if one slaughtered blemished animals on Shabbat he is liable to bring a sin-offering, as they are never sacrificed as offerings, and similarly, unconsecrated animals are never sacrificed as offerings? Rav Na岣an responded: There is room for a distinction. Blemished animals cannot be confused with unblemished ones, and so there is no legitimate reason for error; but these, i.e., unconsecrated animals, can easily be confused with consecrated animals, as they are externally indistinguishable from one another, and therefore one who confuses them is exempt.


讜讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讜诇讗 讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讜讟专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讙诇 砖诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟讜 诇砖讜诐 讛驻住讞 讗诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚讟专讬讚


Rava asked further: And is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason really that these can be confused and these cannot be confused with a legitimate offering? But didn鈥檛 Rav Beivai say that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Meir would exempt him even in the case of a calf of a peace-offering that he slaughtered for the purpose of the Paschal offering, even though there is no way to mistake a calf for an animal that can be brought for the Paschal offering? Therefore, it is apparent that Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason is that he is preoccupied with sacrificing the calf as an offering, and consequently he is exempt if he erred and slaughtered it for the purpose of a Paschal lamb. But why should one be exempt if he brought an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering? He is not preoccupied with bringing it as an offering.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟专讬讚 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讞诇祝 诪讞诇祝 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讟专讬讚 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讚诇讗 讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 诪讞诇祝 讜诇讗 诪讟专讬讚 讟专讬讚


Rav Na岣an said to him: Both reasons apply according to Rabbi Meir. If one is preoccupied with bringing the animal as an offering, he is exempt even though the animal cannot easily be confused with the one he was supposed to sacrifice. And when the animal can easily be confused with the one set aside as an offering, he is exempt, even though he is not preoccupied with bringing it as an offering. This comes to exclude blemished animals, which cannot be confused with unblemished animals and with whose sacrifice he is not preoccupied.


讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗 讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 谞转讞诇祝 诇讜 砖驻讜讚 砖诇 谞讜转专 讘砖驻讜讚 砖诇 爪诇讬 讜讗讻诇讜 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k were sitting on the porch of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k, and they sat and said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: If one unwittingly confused a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, which it is prohibited to eat and which makes one liable to receive the punishment of karet when one eats it intentionally, with a spit of roasted sacrificial meat, which is a mitzva to eat, and he ate it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Although he intended to do a mitzva, since he unwittingly transgressed the prohibition against eating leftover sacrificial meat, he must bring a sin-offering.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗砖转讜 谞讚讛 讘注诇 讞讬讬讘 讬讘诪转讜 谞讚讛 讘注诇 驻讟讜专


And they further reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But if he unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law who was waiting to become his wife through levirate marriage while she was menstruating, he is exempt, because the act of intercourse itself is a mitzva. A man whose brother died without children is obliged by Torah law to marry his deceased brother鈥檚 widow and 鈥渃ome to her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), so that even if he mistakenly transgressed while attempting to fulfill the mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讛讛讬讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讚诇讗 注砖讛 诪爪讜讛


The Gemara attempts to determine whether Rabbi Yo岣nan agrees or disagrees with Reish Lakish鈥檚 ruling: Some say that all the more so in the first case, where one unwittingly ate a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, Rabbi Yo岣nan would deem him liable to bring a sin-offering, for he did not actually perform a mitzva when he ate the meat, even though he intended to do so. This stands in contrast to the second case, where the person unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, where he at least performed a small mitzva, as will be explained shortly.


讗讬转 讚讗诪专讬 讘讛讛讬讗 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇砖讬讜诇讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇砖讬讜诇讬 诇讗


Others say that according to Rabbi Yo岣nan in that case where one ate leftover sacrificial meat, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. What is the reason? There, where he had sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable, for he should have asked her if she was menstruating, and because he failed to do so he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But here, where he ate a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, he did not have anyone to ask, and so he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬讘诪转讜 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 讗砖转讜 谞诪讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 讘讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转


The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is different about one who unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law, in that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering? Is it that he performed a mitzva, i.e., the mitzva of levirate marriage? If so, then also in the case where he unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he performed a mitzva, for he occupied himself in the fulfillment of the mitzva of procreation. The Gemara answers that we are dealing here with a case where his wife is pregnant, such that intercourse cannot lead to procreation.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖诪讞转 注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 注讜谞转讛


The Gemara raises another question: Nevertheless, there is the mitzva of the enjoyment of conjugal rights. One of a husband鈥檚 marital obligations is to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife at regular intervals (see Exodus 21:10), and this is considered a mitzva. The Gemara answers that we are talking about a case where it is not the time of her conjugal rights.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇砖诪讞 讗砖转讜 讘讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 住诪讜讱 诇讜讜住转讛


The Gemara asks further: Even so, didn鈥檛 Rava say that a man is obligated to please his wife through a mitzva? That is to say, he must engage in sexual intercourse with her when she so desires, even if it is not the time of her conjugal rights. The Gemara answers that we are dealing with a case where it was near her expected date of menstruation, when sexual relations are prohibited due to a concern that the woman may already be menstruating or that she may begin to menstruate during the sexual act.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讘诪转讜 谞诪讬 讬讘诪转讜 讘讝讬讝 诪讬谞讛 讗砖转讜 诇讗 讘讝讬讝 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if they engaged in sexual intercourse near the woman鈥檚 expected date of menstruation when he should have refrained from doing so, then even in the case where he had sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law and she turned out to be menstruating, he should also be liable, as the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply at that time. The Gemara explains that with regard to his sister-in-law, he is still shy [bazeiz] in front of her and uncomfortable asking her whether she is close to her expected menstruation date, whereas with regard to his wife, he is not shy in front of her, and so he should have asked her.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗 讘专砖讜转


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, in accordance with whose opinion did he rule with regard to one who erred while engaged in a mitzva? If you say he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: If the first Festival day of the festival of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried his lulav out into the public domain and continued to transport it there, unwittingly performing a prohibited labor, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. That is because he carried it out with permission, that is to say, he was acting with the intention of fulfilling a mitzva.


讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇


There is room to differentiate between Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 ruling and that of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Perhaps it is different there, as he is pressed for time. Since by Torah law the mitzva of lulav applies only one day a year, he is anxious to fulfill the mitzva and therefore does not realize that he is violating a Torah prohibition. This is unlike the case of levirate marriage, which need not be performed at any specific time and about which he is less pressured.


讜讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讝讘讞讬诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇


Rather, one might say that Rabbi Yo岣nan issued his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in our mishna with regard to offerings, for according to Rabbi Yehoshua, one who unwittingly slaughtered another offering on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, and the animal was fit to be brought as a Paschal offering, is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Here too, however, there is room to differentiate. Perhaps there also we can say that Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because he is pressed for time.


讜讗诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚转讬谞讜拽讜转 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讝诪谞讜 讘讛讜诇


Rather, one might say that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to babies, one that should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve and the other on Shabbat, and the circumciser forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat. In that case the circumciser is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. But once again there is room to differentiate: Perhaps there too, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because he is pressed for time.


讜讗诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚转专讜诪讛 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜谞讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


Rather, we should say that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to teruma, as we learned in a mishna: If a priest was eating teruma, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a woman who underwent 岣litza and he is therefore disqualified from the priesthood and may not eat teruma, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to pay the value of the principal and an additional fifth, like any non-priest who unwittingly ate teruma, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. In this case, one who thought he was a priest and therefore fulfilling a mitzva when he ate the teruma was actually committing a transgression, but nevertheless, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him from the ordinary penalty. On the face of it, this is similar to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling.


讚讬诇诪讗 讻讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讘注专讘 讛驻住讞 讚讝诪谞讛 讘讛讜诇


This comparison can, however, be rejected, for perhaps that case should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Beivai bar Abaye. For Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: The mishna is talking about a disqualified priest who ate teruma which is leaven on the eve of Passover, whose time is pressing, because if he does not eat it quickly he will have to burn it.


讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讗谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讬拽专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻砖专


Alternatively, there may be another reason to differentiate: Eating teruma is different, because it is called sacred service, and the Merciful One validates service performed by someone of priestly descent even if he is not fit for the priesthood.


讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪拽专讬讘 讜谞讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讻诇 讛拽专讘谞讜转 讻讜诇谉 砖讛拽专讬讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讻砖讬专 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讻转讬讘 讘专讱 讛壮 讞讬诇讜 讜驻注诇 讬讚讬讜 转专爪讛


As we learned in a mishna: If a priest was standing and sacrificing offerings on the altar, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a woman who underwent 岣litza, all the offerings that he offered on the altar until that time are disqualified, because only service performed by a priest deemed fit is acceptable. And Rabbi Yehoshua validates them. And we said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua? As it is written with regard to the tribe of Levi: 鈥淏less, Lord, his substance and accept the work of his hands鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:11), which teaches that after the fact, God accepts the work of a priest鈥檚 hands, even if it becomes clear that he was actually disqualified at the time he performed the service.


讜转专讜诪讛 讛讬讻讗 讗讬拽专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 砖诇讗 讘讗 讗诪砖 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 诇砖讞专讬转 诪爪讗讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讘讗转 讗诪砖 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讗诪专 诇讜 注讘讜讚讛 注讘讚转讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇 讚讘专讬讱 讗讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬 转讬诪讛 讜讻讬 注讘讜讚讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专


The Gemara questions what was stated above: And where is teruma called service? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Tarfon, who did not come in the evening to the study hall. In the morning, Rabban Gamliel found him and said to him: For what reason did you not come in the evening to the study hall? He said to him: I was performing sacred service. He said to him: All your words are astonishing; from where do we have service in this time after the destruction of the Temple? He said to him: It says in Scripture:


Scroll To Top