## Pesachim Daf 72b

###### Pesachim 72b:1
[Pesachim 72b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:1)

שֶׁלֹּא נִתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִדָּחוֹת. [וְסֵיפָא — נִתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִדָּחוֹת אֶצְלוֹ].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Pesachim 72b:2
[Pesachim 72b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:2)

הָכָא — הֲרֵי נִתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִדָּחוֹת אֵצֶל קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Pesachim 72b:3
[Pesachim 72b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: הָכָא נָמֵי, הֲרֵי נִתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִדָּחוֹת אֵצֶל תִּינוֹקוֹת דְּעָלְמָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְגַבֵּי דְּהַאי גַּבְרָא מִיהַת לָא אִיתְיְהִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Pesachim 72b:4
[Pesachim 72b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:4)

וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשׁוּם פֶּסַח, אִם אֵינָן רְאוּיִין — חַיָּיב, וְאִם רְאוּיִין — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. מַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁנֵי לֵיהּ בֵּין רְאוּיִין לְשֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Pesachim 72b:5
[Pesachim 72b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:5)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד הַזְּבָחִים הָרְאוּיִין וְאֶחָד זְבָחִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין, וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם אֵימוּרֵי צִיבּוּר — פָּטוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין שֶׁחַיָּיב, עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — עַל הָרְאוּיִין, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Pesachim 72b:6
[Pesachim 72b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:6)

אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פּוֹטֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲפִילּוּ עֵגֶל שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ לְשׁוּם הַפֶּסַח. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַב בִּיבִי: וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין לָא טְרִיד בְּהוּ, וְהַאי טְרִיד בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’t Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.


###### Pesachim 72b:7
[Pesachim 72b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:7)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: חוּלִּין לְשׁוּם פֶּסַח, מַאי לִי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹטֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲפִילּוּ חוּלִּין לְשׁוּם פֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised a dilemma before** Rav Naḥman: 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 Naḥman **said to him: Rabbi Meir would exempt** him **even** if he slaughtered an **unconsecrated** animal **for the purpose of a Paschal offering.**


###### Pesachim 72b:8
[Pesachim 72b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:8)

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין! בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין לָא מִיחַלְּפִי, הָנֵי מִיחַלְּפִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava asked him: **But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Naḥman 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.


###### Pesachim 72b:9
[Pesachim 72b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:9)

וְטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשּׁוּם אִיחַלּוֹפֵי וְלָא אִיחַלּוֹפֵי? וְהָאָמַר רַב בִּיבִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פּוֹטֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲפִילּוּ עֵגֶל שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ לְשׁוּם הַפֶּסַח! אַלְמָא, טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשּׁוּם דִּטְרִיד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava asked further: **And is Rabbi Meir’s reason** really **that these can be confused and these cannot be confused** with a legitimate offering? **But didn’t 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’s 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.


###### Pesachim 72b:10
[Pesachim 72b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טְרִיד — אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מִחַלַּף, מִחַלַּף — אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא טְרִיד, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, דְּלָא אִיחַלּוֹפֵי מִחַלַּף וְלָא מִטְרִיד טְרִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **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.**


###### Pesachim 72b:11
[Pesachim 72b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:11)

יָתֵיב רַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אַקִּילְעָא דְּרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק, וְיָתְבִי וְקָא אָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: נִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ שַׁפּוּד שֶׁל נוֹתָר בְּשַׁפּוּד שֶׁל צָלִי, וַאֲכָלוֹ — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak were sitting on the porch of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak, 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.


###### Pesachim 72b:12
[Pesachim 72b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:12)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה בָּעַל — חַיָּיב. יְבִמְתּוֹ נִדָּה בָּעַל — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** they further reported that **Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’s widow and “come to her” (Deuteronomy 25:5), so that even if he mistakenly transgressed while attempting to fulfill the mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.


###### Pesachim 72b:13
[Pesachim 72b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:13)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן בְּהָהִיא דְּמִחַיַּיב, דְּלֹא עָשָׂה מִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to determine whether Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees or disagrees with Reish Lakish’s ruling: **Some say** that **all the more so in the** first case, where one unwittingly ate a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.


###### Pesachim 72b:14
[Pesachim 72b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:14)

אִית דְּאָמְרִי, בְּהַהִיא — פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? הָתָם הוּא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Others say** that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan **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.


###### Pesachim 72b:15
[Pesachim 72b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:15)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי שְׁנָא יְבִמְתּוֹ, דְּקָא עָבֵיד מִצְוָה? אִשְׁתּוֹ נָמֵי קָא עָבֵיד מִצְוָה! בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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.


###### Pesachim 72b:16
[Pesachim 72b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:16)

וְהָא אִיכָּא שִׂמְחַת עוֹנָה! שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת עוֹנָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another question: Nevertheless, **there is** the mitzva of the **enjoyment of conjugal rights.** One of a husband’s 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.**


###### Pesachim 72b:17
[Pesachim 72b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:17)

וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְשַׂמֵּחַ אִשְׁתּוֹ בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה! סָמוּךְ לְוִוסְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: Even so, **didn’t 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.


###### Pesachim 72b:18
[Pesachim 72b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:18)

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ יְבִמְתּוֹ נָמֵי! יְבִמְתּוֹ בְּזִיז מִינַּהּ, אִשְׁתּוֹ לָא בְּזִיז מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** i.e., if they engaged in sexual intercourse near the woman’s 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.


###### Pesachim 72b:19
[Pesachim 72b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:19)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמַאן? אִילֵּימָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת, וְשָׁכַח וְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַלּוּלָב לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹצִיא בִּרְשׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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.


###### Pesachim 72b:20
[Pesachim 72b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:20)

דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּזְמַנּוֹ בָּהוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is room to differentiate between Rabbi Yosei’s ruling and that of Rabbi Yoḥanan: **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.


###### Pesachim 72b:21
[Pesachim 72b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:21)

וְאֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דִּזְבָחִים. דִּילְמָא הָתָם נָמֵי זְמַנּוֹ בָּהוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one might say that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.**


###### Pesachim 72b:22
[Pesachim 72b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:22)

וְאֶלָּא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּתִינוֹקוֹת. הָתָם נָמֵי זְמַנּוֹ בָּהוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one might say that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s 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.**


###### Pesachim 72b:23
[Pesachim 72b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:23)

וְאֶלָּא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דִּתְרוּמָה, דִּתְנַן: הָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** we should say that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s 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 *ḥalitza*** 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 Yoḥanan’s ruling.


###### Pesachim 72b:24
[Pesachim 72b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:24)

דִּילְמָא כִּדְרַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: בִּתְרוּמָה בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח, דִּזְמַנָּהּ בָּהוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Pesachim 72b:25
[Pesachim 72b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:25)

אִי נָמֵי: שָׁאנֵי תְּרוּמָה דְּאִיקְּרִי עֲבוֹדָה, וַעֲבוֹדָה רַחֲמָנָא אַכְשַׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Pesachim 72b:26
[Pesachim 72b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:26)

דִּתְנַן: הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה — כׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כּוּלָּן שֶׁהִקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ פְּסוּלִין, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַכְשִׁיר. וְאָמְרִינַן, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — דִּכְתִיב: ״בָּרֵךְ ה׳ חֵילוֹ וּפֹעַל יָדָיו תִּרְצֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 *ḥalitza*, 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: **“Bless, Lord, his substance and accept the work of his hands”** (Deuteronomy 33:11), which teaches that after the fact, God accepts the work of a priest’s hands, even if it becomes clear that he was actually disqualified at the time he performed the service.


###### Pesachim 72b:27
[Pesachim 72b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/72b:27)

וּתְרוּמָה הֵיכָא אִיקְּרִי עֲבוֹדָה? דְּתַנְיָא, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן שֶׁלֹּא בָּא אֶמֶשׁ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. לְשַׁחֲרִית מְצָאוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אָמַר לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא בָּאתָ אֶמֶשׁ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ? אָמַר לוֹ: עֲבוֹדָה עָבַדְתִּי. אָמַר לוֹ: כׇּל דְּבָרֶיךָ אֵינָן אֶלָּא דִּבְרֵי תֵימָה, וְכִי עֲבוֹדָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה מִנַּיִן? אָמַר לוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: