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

Daf Yomi

February 2, 2021 | 讻壮 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 73

Some of the cases in the mishna seem quite obvious, so why are they there? If one holds that one who injures in a destructive manner on Shabbat is exempt, why in the mishna is one liable for slaughtering the animal when the sacrifice became disqualified – the slaughter was purely destructive. This question is asked on three case sin the mishna and on a case brought in a braita. The gemara explains in each case what about each case was constructive. The gemara brings a statement of Rav regarding a guilt offering whose owners died or received atonement from a different animal in its stead and it is left to graze. If someone slaughters it without any particular intent it counts as a burnt offering – this implies that a sacrifice can be uprooted automatically and can default to a different sacrifice without intent. This should apply also to a Pesach whose owners left the animal or became impure or died. If so, this contradicts a braita on our mishna that says one must burn it immediately if it was slaughtered – that implies it was a Pesach that was disqualified and it didn’t default automatically to a peace offering. The gemara bring 5 attempts to resolve the contradiction and all are rejected except for one.

注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 讗转谉 讗转 讻讛谞转讻诐 讜讛讝专 讛拽专讘 讬讜诪转 注砖讜 讗讻讬诇转 转专讜诪讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讻注讘讜讚转 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖:


鈥淚 have given you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the stranger that comes near shall be put to death鈥 (Numbers 18:7). This verse is found in the context of the priestly gifts, including teruma, and comes to teach us that they made the eating of teruma in the outlying areas, i.e., outside the Temple, like the service of the Temple.


砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛转诐 驻住讜诇 讛讻讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚转谞讗 住讬驻讗 驻讟讜专 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讞讬讬讘


We learned in our mishna that if one unwittingly slaughtered the Paschal lamb on Shabbat for those who cannot eat it or for those who did not register for it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: It is obvious. Since there, with regard to the slaughter itself, it is invalid, here, with regard to Shabbat, he is liable, for it turns out that he performed a prohibited labor that was not necessary for sacrificing an offering. The Gemara answers: Since the latter clause of the mishna taught cases in which he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, the first clause taught cases in which he is liable, even though it does not really teach us anything new.


讜讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛转诐 讻砖专 讛讻讗 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讘砖讘转 转谞讗 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇讗讬驻诇讜讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注


The Gemara asks: But this also is obvious, since there, the offering is valid, here with regard to Shabbat he is exempt, as the slaughter did not involve a desecration of Shabbat. Rather, since the mishna taught the case of one who slaughtered the Paschal lamb for a different purpose on Shabbat, it also taught the case of one who slaughtered it for those who cannot eat it. The Gemara asks further: And it itself, the case of slaughtering the Paschal offering for a different purpose, why do I need it? The halakha there is also obvious. The Gemara answers: Since the mishna wished to teach the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, it taught all these other halakhot as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诇讘专讬讛 讻讬 讗讝诇转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 诪拽诇拽诇 讘讞讘讜专讛 驻讟讜专 砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讛 转讬拽谉


The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar 岣nnana said to his son: When you go before Rabbi Zerika, ask him: According to the opinion that says that one who inflicts a destructive wound is exempt, i.e., that one who causes a wound on Shabbat that has no constructive effect but rather is purely destructive in nature has not performed a prohibited labor and is therefore exempt from bringing a sin-offering, how are we to understand the mishna鈥檚 ruling that one who slaughtered the Paschal lamb for those who cannot eat it is liable? Since the slaughter is invalid, he should be seen as having wounded the animal in a way that brings no benefit and is simply destructive. What has he improved through the slaughter that he should be liable for having performed a prohibited labor?


转讬拽谉 讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜


The Gemara answers: He has improved it in that if the sacrificial parts of the offering ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend. The halakha is that if the sacrificial parts of a disqualified offering are inadvertently brought up to the top of the altar, they need not be removed and they may be burned on the altar. Thus, the slaughter had some constructive effect.


砖讞讟讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讞讬讬讘 诪讛 转讬拽谉 转讬拽谉 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜


The Gemara asks further: We learned in the mishna that if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb and it was found to have a blemish, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Here too, it may be asked: What has he improved through the slaughter, so that he should be liable? The Gemara answers: He has improved it if the blemish was small, e.g., if it was on the animal鈥檚 eyelid, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that in the case of an offering with such a small blemish, if its sacrificial parts ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend from it, because it is not a disgrace to the altar for the sacrificial parts of such an offering to be burned on it.


砖讞讟讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讟专讬驻讛 讘住转专 驻讟讜专 讛讗 讘讙诇讜讬 讞讬讬讘 诪讛 转讬拽谉 转讬拽谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 谞讘讬诇讛


We learned in the next clause of our mishna that if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb and it was found to have a hidden condition that would cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. The mishna鈥檚 wording indicates that if the animal鈥檚 condition is visible, its owner is liable. It may be asked: What has he improved by slaughtering an animal with a such a condition? The Gemara answers: He has improved it in that he removed it from the category of an animal carcass [neveila], i.e., an animal that died of natural causes or as the result of an improperly carried out act of ritual slaughter. Had the animal died on its own it would have been treated as a neveila, which is a primary source of ritual impurity, rendering those who touch or carry it ritually impure. Proper slaughter of the animal prevents it from falling into that category and imparting ritual impurity.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讟讗转 讘砖讘转 讘讞讜抓 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 诪讛 转讬拽谉


Ravina strongly objects to this: With regard to that which was taught elsewhere in a baraita, that one who unwittingly slaughters a sin-offering on Shabbat outside the Temple for the sake of idolatry is liable to bring three sin-offerings for it: For desecrating Shabbat, for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple, and for practicing idolatry; here too, the question may be raised: What has he improved by slaughtering the animal? Here we cannot answer that he removed it from the category of an animal carcass and prevented it from becoming a primary source of ritual impurity, because any animal that was used as an idolatrous offering imparts ritual impurity. Therefore, it would seem that the slaughter served no constructive purpose.


讗诪专 专讘 注讜讬专讗 砖诪讜爪讬讗讜 诪讬讚讬 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬:


Rav Avira said: Even here he has improved it in that he removed it from the category of limbs from a living creature. Even a gentile is liable if he eats meat taken from a living animal, but once the animal is slaughtered there is no longer any liability. Accordingly, even this act of slaughter has achieved a productive result.


砖讞讟讜 讜谞讜讚注 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖诐 砖谞讬转拽 诇专注讬讛 讜砖讞讟讜 住转诐 讻砖专 诇注讜诇讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛


We learned in the mishna that if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb and it became known afterward that the owners had died, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Rav Huna said that Rav said: Regarding a guilt-offering that was consigned to grazing: If the owner of a guilt-offering dies or achieves atonement through a different guilt-offering, the animal is sent out to graze in the field until it develops a blemish, at which point it can be sold. The money from the sale is used to purchase a burnt-offering. And if, before it developed a blemish, someone slaughtered it without specifying its purpose, it is valid as a burnt-offering. The Gemara concludes that Rav apparently holds that it does not require uprooting. There is no need for an explicit declaration in order to change the status of the offering; even if it is slaughtered without its purpose specified it is valid.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 诇讗 谞讬转拽 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛


The Gemara asks: If so, even when it has not yet been consigned to grazing, it should also be valid, for any guilt-offering whose owner has achieved atonement through a different offering is presumably going to be brought as a free-will burnt-offering. The Gemara answers: This invalidation stems from a rabbinic decree with regard to a guilt-offering after its owner achieved atonement with a different offering due to concern about a guilt-offering before its owner achieved atonement with a different offering. Before the owner achieves atonement the animal is certainly considered a guilt-offering; it is only after the owner achieves atonement that the offering becomes valid for use as a burnt-offering, and then by strict halakha it is immediately valid for that purpose, even before the animal develops a blemish.


讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞谉 讗砖诐 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讜 讗讜 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬讜 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬诪讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 注讜诇讛


From where do you say that this is the case? As we learned elsewhere in a mishna: A guilt-offering whose owner has died or whose owner has achieved atonement through a different guilt-offering grazes until it becomes unfit, whereupon it is sold and its money is used for a communal free-will burnt-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: This guilt-offering is made to die on its own. Rabbi Yehoshua says: When it develops a blemish, it is sold, and he brings a burnt-offering for himself with its money.


讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讙讜驻讜 诇讗 讚讙讝专 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, as soon as the owner achieves atonement, his animal loses its status as a guilt-offering and it becomes a burnt-offering. Nevertheless, even he says that the animal that is bought with its money may indeed be brought as a burnt-offering, but the guilt-offering itself must not be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. Undoubtedly, his reason must be that the Sages issued a decree with regard to a guilt-offering after its owner achieved atonement with a different offering, due to concern about a guilt-offering before its owner achieved atonement with a different offering. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is correct.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖讞讟讜 讜谞讜讚注 砖诪砖讻讜 讘注诇讬诐 讗转 讬讚诐 讜讻讜壮


Rav 岣sda raised an objection to Rav Huna with regard to his opinion about uprooting the status of an offering from what we learned in our mishna: If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and afterward it became known that the owners had withdrawn from it and registered for a different one, or that they had died or become ritually impure, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he slaughtered with permission.


讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讘讞讜诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 讛讗讬 驻住讞 讛讜讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚


And it was taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna that on a weekday, in a case like this, where it turns out that there is no one to eat the Paschal offering, it should be burned immediately. Granted, if you say that an offering that has no owner requires uprooting from its previous status in order for its status to change and in the absence of explicit uprooting it retains its original status, here too it can be argued that this is still a Paschal offering. And since it has no owners, its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself, because it was sacrificed for no purpose, and therefore it should be burned immediately.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 诪专讬砖讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诇诪讬诐 驻住讜诇讜 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讚拽讗 砖讞讬讟 诇讬讛 讗讞专 转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛 讘注讬


But if you say that an offering such as this does not require uprooting, but rather its original status is automatically void upon the death of its owner, and it was a peace-offering from the beginning, as a Paschal offering whose status has been revoked is considered a peace-offering, due to what then is its disqualification? Due to something else, i.e., that he slaughtered it after the daily afternoon offering, which is the proper time to slaughter the Paschal lamb. But a peace-offering that is slaughtered then is disqualified. In that case, however, it should require that it be left overnight until its form decays, thus attaining the status of leftover sacrificial meat, and only then should it be burned.


讚转谞讬讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚 讘讚诐 讜讘讘注诇讬诐 转注讜讘专 爪讜专转讜 讜讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛


As it was taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any offering whose disqualification is in the body of the offering itself should be burned immediately and without delay. But if the disqualification is in the blood of the offering or in the owners, the meat must be kept overnight, so that its form is allowed to decay, and only then should it be taken out to the place of burning. Thus, the baraita that says that a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered on a weekday, and afterward it became known that the owners had died, should be burned immediately proves, against the opinion of Rav Huna, that an offering that has no owners still requires explicit uprooting from its previous status for its status to change.


讗诇讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖讞讟讜 住转诐 讻砖专 诇砖讜诐 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖讞讟讜 诇砖讜诐 注讜诇讛 讻砖专 讗诇诪讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛


Rather, do not say that Rav said that a guilt-offering that one slaughtered without specification is valid as a burnt-offering. Say rather that he said that if one took a guilt-offering whose owner had already achieved atonement through a different animal and he explicitly slaughtered it as a burnt-offering, it is valid. And conclude from this that Rav apparently holds that changing the status of an offering requires explicit uprooting.


讜诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讙诪讚讗 讚讗诪专 谞讝专拽讛 诪驻讬 讞讘讜专讛 讜讗诪专讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讜谞讚讞讬谉 诇驻住讞 砖谞讬


The Gemara asks: A difficulty arises according to Rabbi 岣yya bar Gamda, who dealt with the question whether a Paschal lamb requires uprooting and said that it was thrown out from the group of scholars who were studying the issue, and they all said as follows: Uprooting is required in a case where the owners of the offering were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse during the first Pesa岣 and they were pushed off to the second Pesa岣, for in that case, they presumably want to sacrifice this animal as their Paschal offering on the second Pesa岣, and therefore its status does not change unless it is explicitly uprooted.


讛讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 讛讗 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara infers from this that it is only this offering that requires explicit uprooting, because it is reasonable to assume that its owners still intend to use it for its original purpose, but in general it does not require uprooting. According to this opinion, what is there to say, as it would seem that our mishna indicates that explicit uprooting is necessary?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛驻专讬砖讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜诪转讜 讘注诇讬诐 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 讜讻诇 讛谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜谞专讗讛


Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With what are we dealing here in our mishna? We are dealing with a case where they designated the animal to be sacrificed as their Paschal offering before midday, and midday came and it was firmly established as their Paschal offering, and the owners died after midday, such that the offering was first considered fit and then rejected: It was originally fit to be sacrificed as either a Paschal offering or a peace-offering, and then it was rejected as a peace-offering when it was firmly established as a Paschal offering, and rejected as a Paschal offering when its owners died. And the principle is that anything that was first fit and afterward rejected does not return to being fit. The offering is therefore disqualified and burned immediately, as it can never be brought as a Paschal offering or as a peace-offering.


诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞诐 谞讚讞讬诐


The Gemara rejects this answer: Is this reason necessary for anyone but Rav, who holds that explicit uprooting is not required? But Rav himself said that living creatures cannot be permanently rejected. The halakha of rejection applies only to animals that were already slaughtered, but living creatures cannot be permanently rejected from their sanctified status or eligibility for a mitzva.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讜讻谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗讞专讬诐 诇砖诐 驻住讞 驻住讜诇 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜


Rather, Rav Pappa said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita that adds to the mishna the detail that on a weekday the disqualified offering is immediately burned? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: And similarly, if one slaughtered another offering, such as a peace-offering, for the purpose of a Paschal offering, it is disqualified. If so, its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself, and so it should be burned immediately.


讜讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讞讟讗转 谞诪讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讟讜注讛 讘讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专


The Gemara asks: But if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he would deem him liable also to bring a sin-offering for having slaughtered an invalid offering on Shabbat, for Rabbi Eliezer does not accept the position that one who errs in regard to a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This explanation must, therefore, be rejected.


讗诇讗 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 住诇讗 讞住讬讚讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讞讜谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讞讜谞讗讬 讗讜诪专 讛谞砖讞讟讬诐 诇砖诐 驻住讞 讜诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 驻住讜诇讬诐 讗诇诪讗 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讛讬讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚 讜讘驻讟讜专讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注


Rather, Rav Yosef, son of Rav Salla the 岣sid, explained before Rav Pappa as follows: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben 岣nai. As we learned in a mishna that Yosef ben 岣nai says: Other offerings that are slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering or for the purpose of a sin-offering are disqualified, as he agrees with Rabbi Eliezer in this regard. It is apparent that its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself and therefore it should be burned immediately. But with regard to exemptions from sin-offerings in cases of unintentional desecration of Shabbat, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that one who errs in regard to a mitzva is exempt.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇讬讚注 讗诐 诪砖讻讜 讘注诇讬诐 讗转 讬讚讬讛诐 讗讜 砖诪转讜 讗讜 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讜转注讜讘专 爪讜专转讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛


Rav Ashi said a different answer to this question: Rav said his ruling with regard to a guilt-offering in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: If one slaughtering the Paschal offering on Shabbat still has time in the day to clarify whether the owners withdrew or died or became ritually impure, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having slaughtered on Shabbat, and the meat must be kept overnight so that its form be allowed to decay, and then it should be taken out to the place of burning. What is the reason that its form must be allowed to decay? Is it not because he holds that it does not require uprooting? And for that reason the disqualification is not inherent in the offering, and so it must be left overnight to attain the status of leftover sacrificial meat before being burned.


诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬讙讜诇 谞诪讬 讘注讬 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛 讚讬诇讬祝 注讜谉 注讜谉 诪谞讜转专


The Gemara rejects this argument: From where is this known to be correct? Perhaps it requires uprooting and the disqualification is inherent. And the fact that he requires decay of form is because he agrees with the tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who said that even piggul, an offering disqualified by improper intent, which is considered an inherent disqualification, also requires decay of form, for he derived this requirement by way of a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渋niquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18) stated in relation to an offering disqualified by improper intent and the word 鈥渋niquity鈥 (Leviticus 19:7) stated with regard to leftover sacrificial meat.


讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讙诪讚讗 谞讝专拽讛 诪驻讬 讞讘讜专讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬 诪转 讜谞讚讞讜 诇驻住讞 砖谞讬


For if you do not say so, i.e., that the baraita was taught in accordance with this opinion, then in a case in which the owners became ritually impure, what is there to say? In that case it certainly requires uprooting, for Rabbi 岣yya bar Gamda said that it was thrown out from the group of scholars who were studying the issue: Uprooting is required in a case where the owners of the offering were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse during the first Pesa岣 and they were pushed off to the second Pesa岣. Since their offering is presumably set to be used on the second Pesa岣, explicit change of the offering鈥檚 status is required.


讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讞讜谞讗讬 讛讬讗:


Rather, it is clear that it is as he answered at the beginning, that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben 岣nai. Therefore, on weekdays the offering is burned immediately, and on Shabbat, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, one does not become liable to bring a sin-offering.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐



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...

Pesachim 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 73

注讘讜讚转 诪转谞讛 讗转谉 讗转 讻讛谞转讻诐 讜讛讝专 讛拽专讘 讬讜诪转 注砖讜 讗讻讬诇转 转专讜诪讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讻注讘讜讚转 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖:


鈥淚 have given you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the stranger that comes near shall be put to death鈥 (Numbers 18:7). This verse is found in the context of the priestly gifts, including teruma, and comes to teach us that they made the eating of teruma in the outlying areas, i.e., outside the Temple, like the service of the Temple.


砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛转诐 驻住讜诇 讛讻讗 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚转谞讗 住讬驻讗 驻讟讜专 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讞讬讬讘


We learned in our mishna that if one unwittingly slaughtered the Paschal lamb on Shabbat for those who cannot eat it or for those who did not register for it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: It is obvious. Since there, with regard to the slaughter itself, it is invalid, here, with regard to Shabbat, he is liable, for it turns out that he performed a prohibited labor that was not necessary for sacrificing an offering. The Gemara answers: Since the latter clause of the mishna taught cases in which he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, the first clause taught cases in which he is liable, even though it does not really teach us anything new.


讜讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛转诐 讻砖专 讛讻讗 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讘砖讘转 转谞讗 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讜讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇讗讬驻诇讜讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注


The Gemara asks: But this also is obvious, since there, the offering is valid, here with regard to Shabbat he is exempt, as the slaughter did not involve a desecration of Shabbat. Rather, since the mishna taught the case of one who slaughtered the Paschal lamb for a different purpose on Shabbat, it also taught the case of one who slaughtered it for those who cannot eat it. The Gemara asks further: And it itself, the case of slaughtering the Paschal offering for a different purpose, why do I need it? The halakha there is also obvious. The Gemara answers: Since the mishna wished to teach the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, it taught all these other halakhot as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诇讘专讬讛 讻讬 讗讝诇转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 诪拽诇拽诇 讘讞讘讜专讛 驻讟讜专 砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讛 转讬拽谉


The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar 岣nnana said to his son: When you go before Rabbi Zerika, ask him: According to the opinion that says that one who inflicts a destructive wound is exempt, i.e., that one who causes a wound on Shabbat that has no constructive effect but rather is purely destructive in nature has not performed a prohibited labor and is therefore exempt from bringing a sin-offering, how are we to understand the mishna鈥檚 ruling that one who slaughtered the Paschal lamb for those who cannot eat it is liable? Since the slaughter is invalid, he should be seen as having wounded the animal in a way that brings no benefit and is simply destructive. What has he improved through the slaughter that he should be liable for having performed a prohibited labor?


转讬拽谉 讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜


The Gemara answers: He has improved it in that if the sacrificial parts of the offering ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend. The halakha is that if the sacrificial parts of a disqualified offering are inadvertently brought up to the top of the altar, they need not be removed and they may be burned on the altar. Thus, the slaughter had some constructive effect.


砖讞讟讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讞讬讬讘 诪讛 转讬拽谉 转讬拽谉 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜


The Gemara asks further: We learned in the mishna that if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb and it was found to have a blemish, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Here too, it may be asked: What has he improved through the slaughter, so that he should be liable? The Gemara answers: He has improved it if the blemish was small, e.g., if it was on the animal鈥檚 eyelid, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that in the case of an offering with such a small blemish, if its sacrificial parts ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend from it, because it is not a disgrace to the altar for the sacrificial parts of such an offering to be burned on it.


砖讞讟讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讟专讬驻讛 讘住转专 驻讟讜专 讛讗 讘讙诇讜讬 讞讬讬讘 诪讛 转讬拽谉 转讬拽谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 谞讘讬诇讛


We learned in the next clause of our mishna that if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb and it was found to have a hidden condition that would cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. The mishna鈥檚 wording indicates that if the animal鈥檚 condition is visible, its owner is liable. It may be asked: What has he improved by slaughtering an animal with a such a condition? The Gemara answers: He has improved it in that he removed it from the category of an animal carcass [neveila], i.e., an animal that died of natural causes or as the result of an improperly carried out act of ritual slaughter. Had the animal died on its own it would have been treated as a neveila, which is a primary source of ritual impurity, rendering those who touch or carry it ritually impure. Proper slaughter of the animal prevents it from falling into that category and imparting ritual impurity.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讞讟讗转 讘砖讘转 讘讞讜抓 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转 诪讛 转讬拽谉


Ravina strongly objects to this: With regard to that which was taught elsewhere in a baraita, that one who unwittingly slaughters a sin-offering on Shabbat outside the Temple for the sake of idolatry is liable to bring three sin-offerings for it: For desecrating Shabbat, for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple, and for practicing idolatry; here too, the question may be raised: What has he improved by slaughtering the animal? Here we cannot answer that he removed it from the category of an animal carcass and prevented it from becoming a primary source of ritual impurity, because any animal that was used as an idolatrous offering imparts ritual impurity. Therefore, it would seem that the slaughter served no constructive purpose.


讗诪专 专讘 注讜讬专讗 砖诪讜爪讬讗讜 诪讬讚讬 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬:


Rav Avira said: Even here he has improved it in that he removed it from the category of limbs from a living creature. Even a gentile is liable if he eats meat taken from a living animal, but once the animal is slaughtered there is no longer any liability. Accordingly, even this act of slaughter has achieved a productive result.


砖讞讟讜 讜谞讜讚注 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖诐 砖谞讬转拽 诇专注讬讛 讜砖讞讟讜 住转诐 讻砖专 诇注讜诇讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诇讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛


We learned in the mishna that if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb and it became known afterward that the owners had died, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. Rav Huna said that Rav said: Regarding a guilt-offering that was consigned to grazing: If the owner of a guilt-offering dies or achieves atonement through a different guilt-offering, the animal is sent out to graze in the field until it develops a blemish, at which point it can be sold. The money from the sale is used to purchase a burnt-offering. And if, before it developed a blemish, someone slaughtered it without specifying its purpose, it is valid as a burnt-offering. The Gemara concludes that Rav apparently holds that it does not require uprooting. There is no need for an explicit declaration in order to change the status of the offering; even if it is slaughtered without its purpose specified it is valid.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 诇讗 谞讬转拽 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛


The Gemara asks: If so, even when it has not yet been consigned to grazing, it should also be valid, for any guilt-offering whose owner has achieved atonement through a different offering is presumably going to be brought as a free-will burnt-offering. The Gemara answers: This invalidation stems from a rabbinic decree with regard to a guilt-offering after its owner achieved atonement with a different offering due to concern about a guilt-offering before its owner achieved atonement with a different offering. Before the owner achieves atonement the animal is certainly considered a guilt-offering; it is only after the owner achieves atonement that the offering becomes valid for use as a burnt-offering, and then by strict halakha it is immediately valid for that purpose, even before the animal develops a blemish.


讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞谉 讗砖诐 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讜 讗讜 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬讜 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬诪讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 注讜诇讛


From where do you say that this is the case? As we learned elsewhere in a mishna: A guilt-offering whose owner has died or whose owner has achieved atonement through a different guilt-offering grazes until it becomes unfit, whereupon it is sold and its money is used for a communal free-will burnt-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: This guilt-offering is made to die on its own. Rabbi Yehoshua says: When it develops a blemish, it is sold, and he brings a burnt-offering for himself with its money.


讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讙讜驻讜 诇讗 讚讙讝专 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, as soon as the owner achieves atonement, his animal loses its status as a guilt-offering and it becomes a burnt-offering. Nevertheless, even he says that the animal that is bought with its money may indeed be brought as a burnt-offering, but the guilt-offering itself must not be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. Undoubtedly, his reason must be that the Sages issued a decree with regard to a guilt-offering after its owner achieved atonement with a different offering, due to concern about a guilt-offering before its owner achieved atonement with a different offering. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is correct.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖讞讟讜 讜谞讜讚注 砖诪砖讻讜 讘注诇讬诐 讗转 讬讚诐 讜讻讜壮


Rav 岣sda raised an objection to Rav Huna with regard to his opinion about uprooting the status of an offering from what we learned in our mishna: If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and afterward it became known that the owners had withdrawn from it and registered for a different one, or that they had died or become ritually impure, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he slaughtered with permission.


讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讘讞讜诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 讛讗讬 驻住讞 讛讜讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚


And it was taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna that on a weekday, in a case like this, where it turns out that there is no one to eat the Paschal offering, it should be burned immediately. Granted, if you say that an offering that has no owner requires uprooting from its previous status in order for its status to change and in the absence of explicit uprooting it retains its original status, here too it can be argued that this is still a Paschal offering. And since it has no owners, its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself, because it was sacrificed for no purpose, and therefore it should be burned immediately.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 诪专讬砖讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖诇诪讬诐 驻住讜诇讜 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讚拽讗 砖讞讬讟 诇讬讛 讗讞专 转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛 讘注讬


But if you say that an offering such as this does not require uprooting, but rather its original status is automatically void upon the death of its owner, and it was a peace-offering from the beginning, as a Paschal offering whose status has been revoked is considered a peace-offering, due to what then is its disqualification? Due to something else, i.e., that he slaughtered it after the daily afternoon offering, which is the proper time to slaughter the Paschal lamb. But a peace-offering that is slaughtered then is disqualified. In that case, however, it should require that it be left overnight until its form decays, thus attaining the status of leftover sacrificial meat, and only then should it be burned.


讚转谞讬讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚 讘讚诐 讜讘讘注诇讬诐 转注讜讘专 爪讜专转讜 讜讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛


As it was taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any offering whose disqualification is in the body of the offering itself should be burned immediately and without delay. But if the disqualification is in the blood of the offering or in the owners, the meat must be kept overnight, so that its form is allowed to decay, and only then should it be taken out to the place of burning. Thus, the baraita that says that a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered on a weekday, and afterward it became known that the owners had died, should be burned immediately proves, against the opinion of Rav Huna, that an offering that has no owners still requires explicit uprooting from its previous status for its status to change.


讗诇讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖讞讟讜 住转诐 讻砖专 诇砖讜诐 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖讞讟讜 诇砖讜诐 注讜诇讛 讻砖专 讗诇诪讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛


Rather, do not say that Rav said that a guilt-offering that one slaughtered without specification is valid as a burnt-offering. Say rather that he said that if one took a guilt-offering whose owner had already achieved atonement through a different animal and he explicitly slaughtered it as a burnt-offering, it is valid. And conclude from this that Rav apparently holds that changing the status of an offering requires explicit uprooting.


讜诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讙诪讚讗 讚讗诪专 谞讝专拽讛 诪驻讬 讞讘讜专讛 讜讗诪专讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讜谞讚讞讬谉 诇驻住讞 砖谞讬


The Gemara asks: A difficulty arises according to Rabbi 岣yya bar Gamda, who dealt with the question whether a Paschal lamb requires uprooting and said that it was thrown out from the group of scholars who were studying the issue, and they all said as follows: Uprooting is required in a case where the owners of the offering were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse during the first Pesa岣 and they were pushed off to the second Pesa岣, for in that case, they presumably want to sacrifice this animal as their Paschal offering on the second Pesa岣, and therefore its status does not change unless it is explicitly uprooted.


讛讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 讛讗 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara infers from this that it is only this offering that requires explicit uprooting, because it is reasonable to assume that its owners still intend to use it for its original purpose, but in general it does not require uprooting. According to this opinion, what is there to say, as it would seem that our mishna indicates that explicit uprooting is necessary?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛驻专讬砖讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜诪转讜 讘注诇讬诐 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 讜讻诇 讛谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜谞专讗讛


Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With what are we dealing here in our mishna? We are dealing with a case where they designated the animal to be sacrificed as their Paschal offering before midday, and midday came and it was firmly established as their Paschal offering, and the owners died after midday, such that the offering was first considered fit and then rejected: It was originally fit to be sacrificed as either a Paschal offering or a peace-offering, and then it was rejected as a peace-offering when it was firmly established as a Paschal offering, and rejected as a Paschal offering when its owners died. And the principle is that anything that was first fit and afterward rejected does not return to being fit. The offering is therefore disqualified and burned immediately, as it can never be brought as a Paschal offering or as a peace-offering.


诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞诐 谞讚讞讬诐


The Gemara rejects this answer: Is this reason necessary for anyone but Rav, who holds that explicit uprooting is not required? But Rav himself said that living creatures cannot be permanently rejected. The halakha of rejection applies only to animals that were already slaughtered, but living creatures cannot be permanently rejected from their sanctified status or eligibility for a mitzva.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讜讻谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗讞专讬诐 诇砖诐 驻住讞 驻住讜诇 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜


Rather, Rav Pappa said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita that adds to the mishna the detail that on a weekday the disqualified offering is immediately burned? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: And similarly, if one slaughtered another offering, such as a peace-offering, for the purpose of a Paschal offering, it is disqualified. If so, its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself, and so it should be burned immediately.


讜讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讞讟讗转 谞诪讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讟讜注讛 讘讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专


The Gemara asks: But if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he would deem him liable also to bring a sin-offering for having slaughtered an invalid offering on Shabbat, for Rabbi Eliezer does not accept the position that one who errs in regard to a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This explanation must, therefore, be rejected.


讗诇讗 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 住诇讗 讞住讬讚讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讞讜谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讞讜谞讗讬 讗讜诪专 讛谞砖讞讟讬诐 诇砖诐 驻住讞 讜诇砖诐 讞讟讗转 驻住讜诇讬诐 讗诇诪讗 驻住讜诇讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讛讬讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬砖专祝 诪讬讚 讜讘驻讟讜专讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注


Rather, Rav Yosef, son of Rav Salla the 岣sid, explained before Rav Pappa as follows: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben 岣nai. As we learned in a mishna that Yosef ben 岣nai says: Other offerings that are slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering or for the purpose of a sin-offering are disqualified, as he agrees with Rabbi Eliezer in this regard. It is apparent that its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself and therefore it should be burned immediately. But with regard to exemptions from sin-offerings in cases of unintentional desecration of Shabbat, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that one who errs in regard to a mitzva is exempt.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇讬讚注 讗诐 诪砖讻讜 讘注诇讬诐 讗转 讬讚讬讛诐 讗讜 砖诪转讜 讗讜 砖谞讟诪讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讜转注讜讘专 爪讜专转讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛


Rav Ashi said a different answer to this question: Rav said his ruling with regard to a guilt-offering in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: If one slaughtering the Paschal offering on Shabbat still has time in the day to clarify whether the owners withdrew or died or became ritually impure, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having slaughtered on Shabbat, and the meat must be kept overnight so that its form be allowed to decay, and then it should be taken out to the place of burning. What is the reason that its form must be allowed to decay? Is it not because he holds that it does not require uprooting? And for that reason the disqualification is not inherent in the offering, and so it must be left overnight to attain the status of leftover sacrificial meat before being burned.


诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬讙讜诇 谞诪讬 讘注讬 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛 讚讬诇讬祝 注讜谉 注讜谉 诪谞讜转专


The Gemara rejects this argument: From where is this known to be correct? Perhaps it requires uprooting and the disqualification is inherent. And the fact that he requires decay of form is because he agrees with the tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who said that even piggul, an offering disqualified by improper intent, which is considered an inherent disqualification, also requires decay of form, for he derived this requirement by way of a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渋niquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18) stated in relation to an offering disqualified by improper intent and the word 鈥渋niquity鈥 (Leviticus 19:7) stated with regard to leftover sacrificial meat.


讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞讟诪讗讜 讘注诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讙诪讚讗 谞讝专拽讛 诪驻讬 讞讘讜专讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬 诪转 讜谞讚讞讜 诇驻住讞 砖谞讬


For if you do not say so, i.e., that the baraita was taught in accordance with this opinion, then in a case in which the owners became ritually impure, what is there to say? In that case it certainly requires uprooting, for Rabbi 岣yya bar Gamda said that it was thrown out from the group of scholars who were studying the issue: Uprooting is required in a case where the owners of the offering were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse during the first Pesa岣 and they were pushed off to the second Pesa岣. Since their offering is presumably set to be used on the second Pesa岣, explicit change of the offering鈥檚 status is required.


讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讞讜谞讗讬 讛讬讗:


Rather, it is clear that it is as he answered at the beginning, that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben 岣nai. Therefore, on weekdays the offering is burned immediately, and on Shabbat, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, one does not become liable to bring a sin-offering.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐



Scroll To Top