MISHNAH: The following items about the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath¹: Its slaughter, and the pouring of its blood, and emptying its intestines², and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and washing of its intestines³ do not push aside. Carrying it⁴, or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain, or cutting its wart⁵. 22:22), the animal could not have been dedicated if it had developed one by the time of dedication. If it was dedicated without defect, a wart which developed later may be cut., do not push aside; Rebbi Eliezer says, they push aside⁶ 19:1)..

footnotes: ¹ If the 14th of Nisan falls on a Sabbath. ² Cleaning out the bowels so the carcass will not start to smell before nightfall when it can be roasted. ³ To clean them thoroughly to prepare them as food. ⁴ Carrying the lamb on one’s shoulder. ⁵ Since a wart is a defect which disqualifies an animal as sacrifice (Lev ⁶ He holds that if an action supersedes the rules of the Sabbath, all preparatory actions also supersede the Sabbath (Šabbat

HALAKHAH: “The following items about the Pesaḥ,” etc. ⁷ This question left the Elders of Bathyra at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. They said, we have here a Babylonian who served Shemaya and Avtalion⁸ and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be hope from him. They sent and called him. The said to him, did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not? He told them, do we have only one Pesaḥ which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year? There are Tannaim who state: 100. There are Tannaim who state: 200. There are Tannaim who state: 300. He who says 100, the daily sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 200, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 300, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath, and of holidays, and of New Moons, and of semi-holidays. They told him, already we said, there is hope from you. He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut. By analogy: The daily sacrifice is a public offering and Pesaḥ is a public offering. Since the daily sacrifice as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath, also Pesaḥ as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath. By an argument de minore ad majus. Since the daily sacrifice, whose action is not subject to extirpation, pushes aside the Sabbath, it is only logical that Pesaḥ, whose action is subject to extirpation, push aside the Sabbath. By equal cut. It is said about the daily sacrifice, at its fixed time⁹. 28:2., and it is said about Pesaḥ, at its fixed time¹⁰. 9:2.. They said to him, we already said, is there hope from a Babylonian? The analogy which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are fixed in number, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? The argument de minore ad majus which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are most holy, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is a simple sacrifice¹¹ is not that of minor and major; the argument is intrinsically invalid.? Concerning the equal cut which you proposed, nobody can introduce an equal cut by himself¹².

footnotes: ⁷ Babli 66a; Tosephta 4:13–14. ⁸ The heads of the Pharisaic establishment in the preceding generation. ⁹ Num ¹⁰ Num ¹¹ The relationship between daily sacrifice and Pesaḥ ¹² Equal expressions in the Pentateuch imply equal legal status only if there is a documented tradition that these words were written for this purpose. Babli 66a.

¹³ pp. 446–447) becomes readable again (ג). Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather¹⁴. 11:29–30) imparts impurity in the volume of a lentil; a human corpse only in the volume of an olive. A human corpse imparts impurity to everything under the same roof with it, a dead creeping one imparts impurity only by contact. The argument is incomprehensible but the text is confirmed not only by ג but also by Sefer Hapardes from the school of Rashi (Pardes Gadol §175, ed. H. L. Ehrenreich p. 230), and Meïri Pesaḥim (ed. Y. Klein, col. 290a). While textile and leather are written about the creeping animal in Lev. 11:32, they are not mentioned in the Chapter about tent impurity (Num. 19). It is mentioned in the Chapter about ṣāraˋ at impurity of textiles (Lev. 13:47–59) although not in the exact wording of 11:32. The argument should be that the equal cut is illegitimate since minimal sizes for impurity of animals are determined by volume while those of textiles by surface area; the rules cannot be transferred.. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure¹⁵, nor in Meïri. It is part of a sermon in Taˋanti (Yerushalmi 2:1 69a line 69, Babli 16a.). Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned¹⁶. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself¹⁶. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

footnotes: ¹³ Here a Genizah fragment (Ginze Schechter ¹⁴ A dead creeping animal (of the list Lev ¹⁵ This argument does not belong here, it is not in ג, nor in Pardes ¹⁶ Since it is part of oral tradition. ¹⁶ Since it is part of oral tradition.

Even though he was sitting and explaining the entire day they did not accept it from him until he said, it should come over me, so I heard from Shemaya and Avtalion. When they heard this from him, they rose and appointed him Patriarch over them. After they had appointed him Patriarch over them, he started to goad¹ them with words, and said: What caused you to need this Babylonian? Not that you did not serve the two greats of the world, Shemaya and Avtalion? When he started to goad them with words, practice disappeared from him.

footnotes: ¹ Greek κεντρόω “to spur, goad, hit with a sharp instrument”.

¹⁷ 19, Notes 59–66, where readings are noted and the text is explained. While the text fits in here, its origin is in Šabbat since the disagreement between R. Immi and R. Simon mentioned in the paragraph does not refer to anything discussed here. They said to him: What to do with people who did not bring their knives with them? He told them, I was informed of the practice, but I forgot. But let Israel act; if they are not prophets they are descendants of prophets. Then everybody whose Passover sacrifice was a lamb stuck them in its fleece, for a kid goat he bound them to its horns; it turned out that the Passover sacrifices brought their knives with them. When he saw the action he remembered the practice. He told them, this is what I heard from Shemaya and Avtalion.

footnotes: ¹⁷ This is copied from Šabbat

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching. There, we have stated¹⁸ 2:3. The text in parentheses was added by the corrector from the Mishnah.: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified. [But if he tied it with the bridle, made it a shoe lest it slip, put his toga on it because of flies, it is qualified. This is the principle: Anything for its needs, it is qualified. For any other need, it is disqualified.]” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rebbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rebbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rebbi Abun said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14th which falls on the Sabbath! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel.

footnotes: ¹⁸ Mishnah Parah

Rebbi Mana said, I heard from Rebbi Yudan and from all the rabbis, why does one honor the lower house¹⁹? So that divisions should not grow in Israel. Three put down their crowns in this world and inherited the life of the Future World. And these are: Jonathan the son of Saul, and Eleazar ben Azariah, and the Elders of Bathyra. Jonathan the son of Saul. Rebbi La said, even the women behind the loom²⁰ did know that David would rule in the future. Eleazar ben Azaria was Second in rank²¹ 4:1 Notes 114–124). ג reads “there was a stipulation,” that he would remain Chief Justice if Rabban Gamliel was re-instated as Patriarch.. There are among these only the Elders of Bathyra who freed themselves of the Patriarchate and appointed him Patriarch. The rabbis of Caesarea said, also Rebbi Ḥanina of Sepphoris for Rebbi Mana. Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai²² said, all my days I fled from authority. Now that I entered, anybody who would remove me I would treat like a water kettle. As the kettle burns, and injures, and chars, so I would treat him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, heaven forbid that he wanted this. But he said, who could tell me that he would sanctify the Name of Heaven as I am doing.

footnotes: ¹⁹ Following ג, we read “the earthly House”, meaning the Patriarchate (as recognized by L. Ginzberg), not “the earthly court”. While Hillel became Patriarch because of his intellectual stature, in Talmudic times the descendants of Rebbi were no longer the leading scholars. The question then is asked, why they should retain their status as Patriarchs. They are needed since their pronouncements can guarantee unity of practice in Judaism. ²⁰ Greek καῖρος, ό. ²¹ While he volunteered to re-establish Rabban Gamliel as Patriarch (Berakhot ²² Since the name tradition is not uniform, it cannot be determined who exactly was the person referred to.

Because of three questions Hillel immigrated from Babylonia. He is pure. I could think that he was rid of it and may take leave, the verse says, the Cohen shall declare him pure. If the Cohen shall declare him pure then I could think that if the Cohen declared him pure while he was impure that he was pure, the verse says, he is pure and the Cohen shall declare him pure²³. 13:37.. For this Hillel immigrated from Babylonia²⁴ 9(15)..

footnotes: ²³ Lev ²⁴ Sifra Tazriaˋ Pereq

One verse says²⁵. 16:2., you shall sacrifice a Pesaḥ to the Eternal, your God, small cattle and large cattle. Another verse says²⁶. 12:5.,from sheep and goats you shall take. How is this? Small cattle for Pesaḥ, small and large cattle for the festival sacrifice²⁷. 129, not in the name of Hillel..

footnotes: ²⁵ Deut ²⁶ Ex ²⁷ Babli 70b, Sifry Deut

One verse says²⁸. 16:8., you shall eat mazzot for six days; another verse says²⁹. 12:5., seven days you shall eat mazzot. How is this? Six days from the new crop³⁰ ceremony on the second day of the Holiday of Unleavened Bread, when grain from the new harvest becomes permitted (Lev. 23:14). Sifry Deut. 134 in the name of R. Simeon, 5 generations after Hillel; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo, Parašah 8, anonymous., seven days from the old. He interpreted, and agreed, and immigrated, and received practice³¹.

footnotes: ²⁸ Deut ²⁹ Ex ³⁰ After the Omer ³¹ He had found the solutions himself; he immigrated into Palestine to have his explanations accepted by Shemaya and Avtalion and to have it harmonized with existing practice.

“Emptying its intestines”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all the Eternal’s works are for Himself³² 16:4. Quoted Babli Šabbat116b.; that it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice³³. Rebbi Ismael stated, its skinning pushes the Sabbath aside³⁴. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, on the Sabbath one was skinning the breast³⁵. What is Rebbi Ismael’s reason? That it should not look as if he took the parts from a disgusting sacrifice. What does Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa do with this? Because he turns it around, it is not as if he was taking the parts from a disgusting sacrifice³⁶. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said the same. As Rebbi Ismael said, choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside³⁷ 6:1, R. Ismael states that while on a Sabbath the ˋOmer(3/10 of a seah) of barley flour was sifted from three seah of grain while on weekdays it was from five. This implies that for the Temple service one uses choice material but only on weekdays it must be of the choicest kind if it is a matter of pushing aside Sabbath prohibitions., so Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said choice pushes aside but choicest does not push aside. If you are saying, this is choice, can he not tear it open and remove the parts³⁸ Also R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa could obtain the desired result with much less Sabbath desecration. Therefore R. Joḥanan’s statement cannot be correct.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it only follows Rebbi Simeon.

footnotes: ³² Prov. ³³ Since for profane use the emptying of the intestines would be a Sabbath violation. ³⁴ But for profane use it would be a Sabbath violation. ³⁵ With Tosephta 4:10 one has to read: “One was skinning up to the breast (starting with the feet).” ³⁶ Since it is obvious that one skins from the feet for sacrificial use, it is not necessary to push aside the Sabbath more than a minimum. ³⁷ In Mishnah Menaḥot ³⁸ If we interpret R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa in this way, then R. Ismael would be inconsistent by requiring total stripping of the Pesaḥ.

³⁹ 12, Notes 47–49. as it was stated⁷: “One who scratches, who drills, who chops anything is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one who scratches only if he scratches completely, one who drills only if he drills completely, one who chops only if he chopped completely, one who tans hides only if he tanned completely.” And Rebbi Jacob bar Ada said, this only follows Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon did not treat partial work as whole work, but the rabbis do treat partial work as whole work⁴⁰ on the Sabbath is forbidden as action for profane use; he only permits partial skinning since for him it is not a Sabbath desecration. Cf. Menaḥot63b–64a..

footnotes: ³⁹ This is from Šabbat ⁷ Babli 66a; Tosephta 4:13–14. ⁴⁰ Therefore R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa disagrees with R. Ismael and holds that skinning the Pesaḥ

⁴¹ 12, Notes 50–53; it refers to Mishnah Šabbat 12:1 and has no meaning here. And it is difficult about Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If one took [tools] to harvest but did not harvest, is that perhaps anything? Rebbi Ada said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: “One who hits or smooths a piece of weaving is liable. He is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

footnotes: ⁴¹ This paragraph, continuation of the preceding one, is copied from Šabbat

⁴² 1:1 (56c l. 13), which seems to be the original source.“And the burning of its fat.” The fat of my holiday offering shall not stay until the morning⁴³ 23:18. The first part of the verse is about slaughtering the Pesaḥ (Chapter 5, Note 130). The second part quoted here explicitly mentions the holiday offering, the required family sacrifice on the occasion of the holiday pilgrimage, but is interpreted to include the fat of the Pesaḥ.. But could parts from weekday be brought on a holiday⁴⁴? Rebbi Abbahu said, I confirmed it, if the Fourteenth fell on a Šabbath. Rebbi Jonah asked, if the Fourteenth fell on a Šabbath, no holiday offering comes with it, that the Torah has to say, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not stay”⁴⁵? (And here, bring it to the altar when it is still daylight lest it come to “not tarry”⁴⁶ 23:22, belongs to Roš Haššanah and has no meaning here..) Rebbi Ḥinena said, if he transgressed and brought, is it not qualified⁴⁷? Since it is qualified if he transgressed and brought, he would transgress⁴⁸.

footnotes: ⁴² This paragraph also appears word for word in Roš Haššanah ⁴³ Ex. ⁴⁴ Since the 15th of Nisan is a holiday, it seems obvious that parts of a sacrifice brought on the 14th have to be burned before the start of the holiday; the verse seems to be meaningless. ⁴⁵ Even if we restrict the meaning of the sentence to holiday offerings, since there is none if the 14th falls on a Sabbath, the explanation of R. Abbahu seems pointless. ⁴⁶ This sentence, referring to Deut. ⁴⁷ This argument that a holiday offering, brought in error on the 14th which is a Sabbath, is qualified and the person who brought it is not liable for a Sabbath infraction, is not found in the Babli and the surviving Tosephta mss.; it is quoted as R. Meïr’s opinion in the Tosephta of the Bomberg Babli, 5:4. ⁴⁸ If one brings a holiday offering on a 14th which is a Sabbath, the explanation of R. Abbahu applies. The verse is not meaningless.

“But its roasting, and washing of its intestines, do not push aside.” We have stated, “When it got dark, they left and roasted their Pesaḥ”, and you are saying so? For hanging into the oven⁴⁹ 1:15 roasting the Pesaḥ on the Sabbath is permitted if the 14th is a Friday. Why is it prohibited if the 14th is a Sabbath? The roasting essentially os automatic; it is starting the process which is forbidden on a Sabbath, whether the 14th is a Friday or a Sabbath..

footnotes: ⁴⁹ In Mishnah Šabbat

“Carrying it, or bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain.” He said only, from outside Jerusalem. Therefore from outside the Temple courtyard it is permitted because of rabbinic Sabbath restriction⁵⁰ which they permitted in the Temple.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ Since Jerusalem is a walled city, inside the city there can be no public domain by biblical standards; restrictions of carrying within the city walls are rabbinic.

“Cutting its wart.” There, we have stated⁵¹ 10:11.: “One cuts a wart at the Temple but not in the countryside; using an implement is forbidden here and there.” Here⁵² showing that this is the origin of the Halakhah., you are saying, it pushes aside; there, you are saying, it does not push aside.

footnotes: ⁵¹ Mishnah Eruvin ⁵² In Eruvin,

⁵³ 10, Notes 141–148. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Because of vitiation of the lotteries. Rebbi Yose said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist, the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: All who destroy are not liable, except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood.

footnotes: ⁵³ This paragraph is from Eruvin

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest⁵⁸? ⁵⁹ 3, Notes 127–131. This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written⁶⁰ 12:9. This belongs to the discussion there whether all pentateuchal prohibitions are legally prosecutable, or only those formulated as לֹא whereas those introduced by the negation אַל are simply moral obligations. Since the latter then cannot be enforced in court by biblical standards, they are equal in rank to rabbinic prohibitions., do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written⁶¹ 16:28., stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition⁶²3.. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest⁶³? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart⁶⁴. That is because he thinks it⁶⁵ is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? ⁶⁶ 10(7), Note 64. It is stated there that cutting the wart creates liability only if done professionally with a surgeon’s knife. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting⁶⁷ 94b., and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling⁶⁸ 11:4) not performed on the Sabbath. is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside⁶⁹ on the 14th of Iyar. Cf. Mishnaiot 3,4. but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices⁷⁰? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering⁷¹.

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Since the argument of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua is about rabbinic restrictions because of Sabbath rest, it is implied that the list of items in Mishnah 2 about which R. Eliezer dissents contains only rabbinic prohibitions. But bringing anything from outside the Sabbath domain is a biblical prohibition. ⁵⁹ The next sentences are from Eruvin ⁶⁰ Ex. ⁶¹ Ex. ⁶² This is the end of the parallel in Eruvin ⁶³ This is making a wound, biblically forbidden under the category of slaughtering. ⁶⁴ In Mishnah 1, he does not read “cutting its wart”. ⁶⁵ Cutting the wart. Everybody agrees that biting off the wart is unprofessional, therefore does not create liability, and is only rabbinically forbidden. ⁶⁶ Quoted from Eruvin ⁶⁷ Therefore not causing biblical liability. Babli Šabbat ⁶⁸ Purifying a person impure by the impurity of the dead by sprinkling with water containing of the ashes of the Red Cow. In Second Temple times this was a public act (Mishnah Parah ⁶⁹ If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath and a person’s seventh day of impurity falls on that day, he may not be purified by sprinkling, but this is not biblically forbidden, and he has to celebrate his Pesaḥ ⁷⁰ Since R. Joshua’s argument is about the slaughterer, not the animal being slaughtered. ⁷¹ Their discussion makes sense only if there is no difference whether one speaks about sacrifice or sacrificer. This confirms what R. Zeˋira said.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer said, if slaughter which is work⁵⁴ pushes the Sabbath aside, should not these⁵⁵ push aside the Sabbath. The discussion in particular is about the list of rabbinically prohibited actions at the end of Mishnah 1, which are permitted by R. Eliezer but prohibited by the Sages (represented by R. Joshua.), which are because of Sabbath rest, push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Joshua said to him, holiday is a counter example, where He permitted the work but forbade because of Sabbath rest⁵⁶. Rebbi Eliezer answered whim, what is this, Joshua? What proof is option for obligation⁵⁷?

footnotes: ⁵⁴ Slaughter is one of the 49 categories of work biblically forbidden on the Sabbath. ⁵⁵ The Mishnah is a continuation of Mishnah 1, where R. Eliezer holds that all actions needed for the Pesaḥ ⁵⁶ Since preparation of food is permitted on a holiday, slaughter for meat is permitted. But the rules of rabbinic Sabbath rest apply to holiday as to the Sabbath. ⁵⁷ Rules of preparation of profane food cannot teach anything for sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: What does Sabbath rest mean? Did we not state⁷² 3:11. Since there is an obligation to honor the holidays, is there not an obligation to slaughter animals for holiday meals. How can R. Eliezer call this optional?, “One who desecrates sancta, or abases the holidays, or breaks the Covenant of our father Abraham, or is insolent against the Torah, even if in his hands are learning and good deeds, has no part in the Future World.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, what is optional⁷³? If he wants he cooks, if he does not want he does not cook.

footnotes: ⁷² Mishnah Avot ⁷³ There could have been meals prepared beforehand. There is no religious obligation to slaughter on a holiday, it truly is optional.

Rebbi Yose said, so should Rebbi Eliezer have embarrassed Rebbi Joshua. Does not the festival offering disprove according to your system, where they permitted the category of work but prohibited the category of Sabbath rest⁷⁴? He should have answered, no. If you are saying this about the festival offering about which one is not liable for extirpation, what can you say about Pesaḥ where one is liable for extirpation? He also could have objected as in the Mishnah: No, if you are saying this about the holiday about which one is not liable for extirpation, what can you say about Pesaḥ where one is liable for extirpation? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers⁷⁵ 2:5 Note 89, Nazir 5:4 Note 109.. Or it may be as Rebbi Nassa said, like a man who has two arguments but he moves one of them.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Since R. Eliezer is a follower of the House of Shammai, who permit the festival sacrifice to be brought on the holiday but prohibit the (biblically required but purely rabbinically prohibited) laying of hands on the sacrificial animal, he would have to agree that not all rabbinic restrictions are waived on Sabbath and holiday. ⁷⁵ The same statements Kilaim

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling⁶⁸ 11:4) not performed on the Sabbath. is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath⁶⁹ on the 14th of Iyar. Cf. Mishnaiot 3,4.. So you should not wonder about these⁵⁵ push aside the Sabbath. The discussion in particular is about the list of rabbinically prohibited actions at the end of Mishnah 1, which are permitted by R. Eliezer but prohibited by the Sages (represented by R. Joshua.), even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside⁸⁶ on the Sabbath if it is the 14th of Nisan is a biblical decree (Halakhah 6:1), what R. Aqiba proves is that biblical and rabbinic decrees cannot be compared in formal or informal arguments de minore ad majus.. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time⁸⁷ 9:2., whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter⁸⁸ to be executed in violation of Sabbath rules.. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

footnotes: ⁶⁸ Purifying a person impure by the impurity of the dead by sprinkling with water containing of the ashes of the Red Cow. In Second Temple times this was a public act (Mishnah Parah ⁶⁹ If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath and a person’s seventh day of impurity falls on that day, he may not be purified by sprinkling, but this is not biblically forbidden, and he has to celebrate his Pesaḥ ⁵⁵ The Mishnah is a continuation of Mishnah 1, where R. Eliezer holds that all actions needed for the Pesaḥ ⁸⁶ Since it is agreed that the obligation to slaughter the Pesaḥ ⁸⁷ Num. ⁸⁸ There is no biblical authorization for preparations of the Pesaḥ

HALAKHAH: Thirteen years did Rebbi Aqiba enter at Rebbi Eliezer’s and he did not take notice of him. This is his first retort before Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua said to him, is this not the people which you despised; go now and fight against it⁷⁶ 9:38..

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Jud.

There⁷⁷, we have stated: “What is ‘far away’⁷⁸ on the 14th of Nisan (Num. 9:13).? From Modiin and farther away, and in the same distance in every direction, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, from the doorstep⁷⁹ of the Temple courtyard and farther away.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only not to make him liable for extirpation⁸⁰9:2) to offer the Pesaḥ.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah implies this: “Rebbi Aqiba answered him, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment.” Is it a commandment to sprinkle⁸¹? Explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Fourteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ⁸² is able to enter the sanctuary and eat sancta after sundown (Num. 19:19). This means that another person has to slaughter the Pesaḥ for him; but he can then come and eat from the sacrifice in the night. Rav Hoshaia holds that one may not slaughter for a person who could not slaughter by himself; therefore he has to transfer the situation to the 13th., and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he his prevented from fulfilling the commandment. Rav Hoshaia said, explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Thirteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then the next day he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ, and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he is prevented from fulfilling the commandment. It was found stated⁸³ (not quoted) supports R. Eleazar against Rav Hoshaia. following the first [explanation].

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Mishnah 9:2. ⁷⁸ That a person at this place on the 14th of Nisan is not obligated to bring his Pesaḥ ⁷⁹ Accadic askuppu. ⁸⁰ But he will agree that anybody within commuting distance to the Temple is obligated by a positive commandment (Num. ⁸¹ The purification from the impurity of the dead is an obligation for anybody coming to the Sanctuary. If he is not going there, there is no obligation to be sprinkled on. ⁸² This is an inexact statement. The person who was sprinkled with the water containing the ashes of the Red Cow on the 3rd and 7th days of his impurity and then immerses himself in a miqweh ⁸³ A baraita

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it following him who said, from the doorstep of Jerusalem and outside. Would one object from outside Jerusalem to something inside Jerusalem⁸⁴] is consumed” and argues by comparing Pesaḥ to Second Tithe. Both definitions point to Jerusalem, and not the Temple courtyard, as R. Eliezer’s “not far away”; else one would compare “outside of Jerusalem” with “inside Jerusalem (but outside the Temple enclosure).” The version of the Tosephta is supported against the version of the Mishnah.?

footnotes: ⁸⁴ S. Liebermann has noted that this statement refers to Tosephta 8:2 where R. Eliezer defines “far away” as “outside the place where [the Pesaḥ

Is there anybody who says to his teacher, it is the other way around? Since Rebbi Eliezer was teaching him practice currently that the festival offering does not push aside the Sabbath and he objected to him at the time of argument, therefore he told him, it is the other way around⁸⁵ and the remark refers to the formulation of the Mishnaic discussion in Sifry zuṭa Behaˋalotekha 9(2)..

footnotes: ⁸⁵ This refers to their discussion in Mishnah 4. S. Liebermann points out that the use of כָּפַר in the meaning of “contradict” is characteristic of Sifry zuṭa,

⁹⁰ 19 (17a line 16), Notes 66–76. The origin of the first paragraph is here, the second (of which part of the introduction and a sentence are missing here) is from there. It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday and pushes the Sabbath aside, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday, should they push the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts shall prove which he could do after the Sabbath and which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter which push aside the Sabbath when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter had not yet pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.”

footnotes: ⁹⁰ These paragraphs also are Šabbat

What can you say [about a baby]? Maybe the baby would become sick; then the Sabbath would be pushed aside without circumcision. They objected: If the altar collapsed on the Sabbath, it will not be possible to build on the Sabbath!⁹¹ Think of it, if it developed a wart? It cannot be cut on the Sabbath! Warts can be cut on the day before. Think of it, if his Seventh day falls on a Sabbath, there cannot be sprinkling on the Sabbath⁸¹! Sprinkling may be done on the day before.

footnotes: ⁹¹ Added from K: Some kind of altar can be built the day before. ⁸¹ The purification from the impurity of the dead is an obligation for anybody coming to the Sanctuary. If he is not going there, there is no obligation to be sprinkled on.

MISHNAH: When does one bring a festival offering⁹², if the number of participants was large so that only a small portion of the meat was available for each participant, the main dish as the meal was another sacrifice which was given under the rules of festival sacrifices even though it could not be counted as satisfying the biblical requirement of such an offering during the holiday itself. with it? When it comes on a weekday, in purity, and in small portions⁹³ meat were available for each participant, not enough to satisfy. Then the festival offering had to be consumed first.. When it comes on the Sabbath, in large portions, or in impurity⁹⁴ has the status of a public sacrifice in this respect, but the accompanying festival offering does not., one does not bring a festival offering with it. The festival offering came from small cattle or bovines, from sheep or goats, from males and females⁹⁵ must be a male goat or sheep., and may be eaten during two days and one night⁹⁶.

footnotes: ⁹² Since every group had only one Pesaḥ ⁹³ If only small portions of Pesaḥ ⁹⁴ If most of the public is impure, only public sacrifices may be offered in the Temple. The Pesaḥ ⁹⁵ Whereas the Pesaḥ ⁹⁶ In this case really 2 times 24 hrs.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The festival offering of the Fourteenth could come from tithe. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This means that it is voluntary. If you would say that it is obligatory, can anything which is obligatory come from tithe⁹⁷ 27:32) automatically is a sanctum which must be sacrificed and eaten by the family; therefore it is no longer at the disposal of the owner to use it to fulfill any obligation. If it is acceptable for use with the Pesaḥ, this cannot represent fulfilling an obligation. Babli Ḥagigah 7b–8a.?

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Animal tithe (Lev.

It was stated: The festival offering which comes with the Pesaḥ is eaten first so that the Pesaḥ be eaten when one is satiated⁹⁸. Why should the Pesaḥ not be eaten so one be satiated? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Dosay: Lest one come to break a bone⁹⁹ 6 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 20)..

footnotes: ⁹⁸ Tosephta 5:3. ⁹⁹ Babli 70a. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo

It was stated: The festival offering which comes with the Pesaḥ has to be eliminated with it. Come and see, a festival offering may be eaten for two days but the Pesaḥ only until midnight, and you are saying so? If it comes to the table with it¹⁰⁰. Dishes who come to the table with it have to be eliminated with it¹⁰¹. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he who ate soft cheese and wants to eat meat must eliminate the bread slices¹⁰²89(4)..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Since remainders of the Pesah have to be burned (Ex. 12:10), any dish which came into contact with the Pesah has to be burned with it since it may be contaminated with particles of the Pesah. The Babli 70a disagrees and holds that it must be eliminated (as a biblical requirement) only in the opinion of Ben Tema. ¹⁰¹ Tosephta 5:3, opinion of R. Simeon ben Elazar. ¹⁰² Accepted by Šulḥan Arukh Yoreh Deˋa

MISHNAH: He who slaughters the Pesaḥ not for its purpose¹⁰³ on the Sabbath is for this liable for a purification sacrifice¹⁰⁴. For any other sacrifice which he slaughtered for the purpose of Pesaḥ, if they are not suitable¹⁰⁵ he is liable, if suitable, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares not liable¹⁰⁶. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, since for Pesaḥ, which is permitted for its purpose¹⁰⁷, he is liable if he changed its purpose, sacrifices which are forbidden for their purpose¹⁰⁸, it should be logical that he be liable if he changed their purpose. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about Pesaḥ, which he changed to something forbidden, what can you infer about sacrifices which he changed to something permitted¹⁰⁹ may be slaughtered on a 14th of Nisan which is a Sabbath.? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, public parts¹¹⁰ should prove it, which are permitted for their purpose and he who slaughters for their purpose is liable¹¹¹. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about public parts which are fixed in number, what can you infer about Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable¹¹².

footnotes: ¹⁰³ As well-being sacrifice. ¹⁰⁴ If he slaughtered in error, i. e., either if he did not know that slaughtering not for its purpose is forbidden or if he did not realize that it was a Sabbath. ¹⁰⁵ If they are not male sheep or goat yearlings. ¹⁰⁶ For him a valid sacrifice even if wrongly presented cannot trigger liability. ¹⁰⁷ If the 14th is a Sabbath. ¹⁰⁸ Festival offerings or general well-being offerings on a Sabbath. ¹⁰⁹ Since anything called Pesaḥ ¹¹⁰ The altar’s parts of those public sacrifices of which the rest is consumed by the priests, such as holiday purification sacrifices and the public well-being sacrifice of Pentecost. ¹¹¹ If he erroneously slaughters any other sacrifice for the purpose of public sacrifice. ¹¹² Since he slaughtered with the intent of fulfilling a commandment, there can be no liability, and R. Eliezer’s premise is incorrect.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if he realized that it was Pesaḥ but he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offerings¹¹³ and intentionally changed the purpose, there is liability if he erred in thinking that this was permitted, since his intent was executed. But if it was Pesaḥ, only the slaughterer thought that it was a well-being offering and he slaughtered it as well-being offering, it is valid Pesaḥ since an intent based on a false premise has no legal consequence. Cf. Babli 72a.. If he knew that it was a well-being offering but he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi Mana said, there is fulfilling of a commandment in his action. Rebbi Yose said, there is no fulfilling of a commandment in his action¹¹⁴ the slaughterer thought that it was a well-being offering and he slaughtered it as elevation offering. R. Mana holds that the slaughterer’s intent is ineffective since it is based on a wrong premise; the sacrifice is qualified as Pesaḥ. R. Yose holds that in all cases the slaughterer’s intent determines qualification.. Rams of the public which he thought were sheep and he slaughtered them for the purpose of rams, are they perhaps not counted as rams for the public¹¹⁵49a.? It was stated thus: Rams of the public which he thought were sheep and he slaughtered them for the purpose of rams, already are counted for the public as fulfillment of their obligation. The Mishnah applies if he thought it was Pesaḥ and he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ¹¹⁶, …”, if an animal was dedicated as well-being offering but is of the kind qualified for Pesaḥ, and was slaughtered as Pesaḥ, R. Joshua declares him not liable since the sacrifice is qualified and he erred in the fulfillment of a commandment.. If he knew that it was a well-being sacrifice but thought to say that it is permitted to change well-being sacrifice into Pesaḥ, Rebbi Mana said, there is no fulfilling of a commandment in his action; Rebbi Yose said, there is fulfilling of a commandment in his action¹¹⁷ it cannot be called error in the fulfillment of a commandment and even R. Joshua will agree that he is liable. R. Yose holds that since the sacrifice is qualified it must be called error in the fulfillment of a commandment and R. Joshua will hold that he is not liable.. It is reasonable following Rebbi Mana in the first case, following Rebbi Yose in the last.

footnotes: ¹¹³ If he knew that it was Pesaḥ ¹¹⁴ This is a continuation of the preceding argument. The animal was dedicated as Pesaḥ, ¹¹⁵ Rams are supplementary elevation sacrifices on holidays, as are the sheep mentioned here. Babli Menaḥot ¹¹⁶ The second case of Mishnah 8, “for any other sacrifice which he slaughtered for the purpose of Pesaḥ ¹¹⁷ The difference here is the interpretation of R. Joshua’s stance. R. Mana holds that since he knew that the animal was not a Pesaḥ,

Halakhah 7¹¹⁸: They said, that argument of Rebbi Eliezer is no answer to Rebbi Joshua, since he could say to him, how can you answer me with an argument about something that is apt to change for something that is not apt to being changed¹¹⁹ after the 14th is automatically a well-being offering; but animals dedicated as well-being offerings cannot validly be changed into anything else.? Neither is the argument of Rebbi Joshua an answer to Rebbi Eliezer, since he could say to him, the Pesaḥ of Reuben which he slaughtered in the name of Simeon is changed into something qualified¹²⁰; and you are saying, he is liable?

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ Discussion of Mishnah 9. ¹¹⁹ The Pesaḥ ¹²⁰ Mishnah 5:3.

“Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf¹²¹. You understand from here two things. You understand something which has no fixed number, or that is apt to being changed, only if the act is meritorious¹²². Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if the act is meritorious, for example his sister-in-law which is menstruating and he slept with her¹²³ 25:5). Incidentally by this act she becomes his wife, but this is not the point here. Since his act is in obeying a biblical commandment it cannot be sanctioned; even though he was negligent in not asking her whether sex with her was permissible; in the interpretation of R. Joshua’s position given here, the purification offering due for erroneously sleeping with a menstruating woman is neither due nor possible in this case.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the act is [not]¹²⁴ meritorious, for example two spits, one with slaughtered meat, the other with carcass meat, and he intended to eat from one but ate from the other¹²⁵ whose consumption is meritorious. R. Joḥanan asserts that if the intended act was meritorious, the actual action, while a sin, cannot be sinful.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan¹²⁶ 19:4, about two babies to circumcise, one on the Sabbath and one on Sunday.: “If he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable.” In this case the act is not meritorious and Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Samuel from Cappadocia said, the next day it is meritorious¹²⁷.

footnotes: ¹²¹ No public sacrifice is a calf. According to him, R. Meïr in interpreting R. Joshua’s position that no action resulting in a qualified sacrifice can trigger liability. ¹²² Even if there are two detriments as enumerated in the Mishnah, as long as there is an angle of merit there is no liability. ¹²³ If the sister-in-law is a childless widow the brother-in-law is biblically obligated to sleep with her (Deut. ¹²⁴ An addition by the corrector which seems to be erroneous. ¹²⁵ This sentence seems to be corrupt. Eating non-kosher meat is a simple violation, not a deadly sin whose commission in error would require a purification sacrifice. One might try to amend the text; which has been done in very many different ways, none of which is convincing. If one assumes that the uncorrected text is genuine, one has to assume, in the general spirit of the discussion, that the kosher meat is sanctum, ¹²⁶ Šabbat ¹²⁷ Since on Sunday the baby is lawfully circumcised, the Mishnah cannot be used to show that R. Joshua declares not liable even if no commandment was obeyed in the action.

¹²⁸ 19, Notes 110–141. The connection with the topics here seems to be the mention of mazzah in the last two sentences. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Meïr are, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these “children in doubt” he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah taught us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not specify how many Pesaḥ sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Yannai said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount, even if there is no (one) [other] baby to circumcise. If you are treating it like something which is not a fixed amount, only if there remains (one) [another] baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Ḥuna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rebbi Ada bar Ahawah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

footnotes: ¹²⁸ The text from here to the end of the Halakhah is from Šabbat

If he finished he can return only for fibers which would invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we stated, “Rebbi Yose says, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath, if he forgot and took the lulav out into the public domain he is not liable because he took it out with permission.” Does the same hold for a knife for circumcision, the same for unleavened bread? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision; this implies the same even for a knife for circumcision, the same for unleavened bread.

MISHNAH: He is liable if he slaughtered it¹²⁹ on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice if acting in error. not for its eaters, or not for its subscribers, for the uncircumcised, or for the impure¹³⁰ is disqualified if nobody is able to eat it.. He is not liable if for its eaters and not for its eaters, for its subscribers and not for its subscribers, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, for the pure and the impure¹³¹. If he slaughtered and it was found defective, he is liable¹³² may not be defective (Ex. 12:5), it is necessary to inspect the animal before slaughter.. If he slaughtered and it was found internally tom, he is not liable¹³³. He is not liable if he slaughtered and it became known that the owners became disinterested in it, or they died, or they became impure, because he slaughtered with permission¹³⁴.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ For a Pesaḥ ¹³⁰ Since a Pesaḥ ¹³¹ Mishnah 5:3. ¹³² Since the Pesaḥ ¹³³ Since this cannot be determined beforehand, no guilt can be incurred. The last two statements are equally valid for the Sabbath sacrifices during the year. ¹³⁴ R. Joshua’s opinion in the preceding Halakhah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for whom is this¹³⁵ on a Sabbath is liable for a purification sacrifice. needed? For Rebbi Meïr. Does Rebbi Eleazar parallel Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish requires that his action be meritorious, does Rebbi Eleazar require that his action be meritorious¹³⁶ nor can it ever be used for any purpose in the Temple.? If you are saying that there is a difference, since this one has a defect, and a defective animal is not apt to be changed¹³⁷, also a calf is not apt to be changed, and Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf¹²¹. Rebbi Yose said, if Rebbi Eleazar were of Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, it would be understandable, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a defective animals is not apt to be changed, but a calf is apt to be changed, because (it was a problem for Hillel) [it is needed for the slain]¹³⁸ cannot be a calf when there is a verse seemingly endorsing its use (Note 25), is using a calf as Pesaḥ not an excusable error? The text in brackets is the corrector’s, it makes little sense. (Maybe the corrector did not understand the scribe’s text, reading הַלֵּל instead of הִלֵּל). A calf is used in the rite of atonement of an unsolved murder, Deut. 22:1–9, but this is not a Temple ceremony.. Therefore {if it was torn} in the open, he is liable¹³⁹.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ This discusses the statement in the Mishnah that he who slaughters a defective Pesaḥ ¹³⁶ Since a defective animal never is acceptable as a sacrifice, it cannot be dedicated as a Pesaḥ, ¹³⁷ The previous argument, while probably true, is not proven, since R. Meïr also requires that the sacrifice be apt to be changed into one of the correct type, Note 122. ¹²¹ No public sacrifice is a calf. According to him, R. Meïr in interpreting R. Joshua’s position that no action resulting in a qualified sacrifice can trigger liability. ¹³⁸ The correct text is the sribe’s one in parentheses, confirmed by K. Since Hillel raised the question why a Pesaḥ ¹³⁹ This refers to the next clause in the Mishnah, if there was a defect in an internal organ, the sacrifice is disqualified but the slaughterer is not liable. (Not only is he not liable, but he did not commit any sin.) But if the defect was visible, it is a case of the previous clause; there is liability.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it¹⁴⁰ was slaughtered even though the owners decided to belong to a different group. In the preceding text from Šabbat19, R. Simeon is more restrictive than R. Meïr; therefore if the Mishnah is compatible with R. Simeon’s position, it certainly is with R. Meïr’s. is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: If somebody became disinterested in his Pesaḥ, its body is brought as well-being offering¹⁴¹ whose time has passed automatically is dedicated as well-being offering, the case here must be that it was slaughtered on the 14th of Nisan. If it is not Pesaḥ, it must be a well-being offering. The question is whether it is qualified and must be eaten, or is disqualified and may not be eaten. If it is disqualified the next question is whether it is disqualified Pesaḥ and must be burned immediately outside the Temple district or is qualified but unused and as well-being sacrifice has to wait until the third day, when it biblically becomes forbidden and must be burned there (Mishnaiot 7:6–7).. Rebbi Jonah said, qualified well-being offering. Rebbi Yose said, disqualified well-being offering. But did we not state, “not liable”¹⁴²? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the only Pesaḥ which itself is brought as well-being offering is what was lost and found after the owner had fulfilled his obligation¹⁴³. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and qualified. They explain it, not liable and disqualified¹⁴⁴ which is left without eaters.. Samuel said, in any case where they said that a purification sacrifice is allowed to die¹⁴⁵ 4:1–2: The offspring of an animal dedicated as purification offering, the (illegal) replacement of a purification offering, a purification offering whose owner had died, a purification offering which had been lost and was found after the owner had used a replacement, and one who became too old., a Pesaḥ will be brought as well-being sacrifice. But did we not state, “not liable”? They wanted to say, not liable and disqualified. They explain it, not liable and qualified¹⁴³.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ The statement in the Mishnah, when the Pesaḥ ¹⁴¹ . Since a Pesaḥ ¹⁴² “Not liable” implies that a sinful act was committed, only it is not criminally prosecutable. ¹⁴³ Babli 97a. ¹⁴⁴ In the case of the Mishnah, the Pesaḥ ¹⁴⁵ Mishnah Temurah ¹⁴³ Babli 97a.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it¹⁴⁶ is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as we have stated there¹⁴⁷ was slaughtered for a number of subscribers, and all of them except one either lost interest, or died, or became impure, the sacrifice still is valid even though it would not have been permitted to be slaughtered if the facts had been known beforehand.: “One does not slaughter the Pesaḥ for a single individual, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but Rebbi Yose permits.” Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Mana: Where do we find “not liable and qualified”? He told him, here we stated “not liable”, and there we stated “qualified”¹⁴⁸ was disqualified. Therefore it is qualified even for R. Jehudah.. But about all of them did Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, it should lose its shape and be brought to be burned¹⁴⁹. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Yose, one understands if they died or became impure. If the owners became disinterested¹⁵⁰? If they are alive, does disqualification qualify? It is disqualified. If after it was slaughtered, can one become disinterested after slaughter? Since he has the right to become disinterested, the disqualification qualifies¹⁵¹ In keeping with the earlier statements, one may read the scribe’s text as implying that, since before slaughter one may subscribe or cancel the subscription at will, cancelling after slaughter is an excusable error, not intrinsic, and has to follow the general rules of sacrifices becoming disqualified by extrinsic factors., and it needs {losing its} shape.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ The last sentence in the Mishnah, that if the owner(s) lost interest, died, or became impure, the slaughterer on the Sabbath is not liable. A difficulty is created by idiomatic rabbinic Hebrew, where “owner” is בְּעָלִים with the verb in the plural whether there is one owner or there are many owners. ¹⁴⁷ Mishnah 8:7. R. Jehudah may read the Mishnah here that if a Pesaḥ ¹⁴⁸ In Mishnah 8:7 R. Jehudah only says “one does not slaughter;” he does not state that if one slaughtered for a single eater the Pesaḥ ¹⁴⁹ Babli 73b. Since the disqualification is extrinsic, the sacrifice cannot be burned immediately; one has to wait until it must be burned even if it is treated as well-being offering. ¹⁵⁰ In the first two cases, it is an accident and one understands that the sacrifice cannot be burned immediately. But if the owner became disinterested, the animal may not be slaughtered. If it was slaughtered anyhow, the action is illegitimate and the carcass should be burned immediately. ¹⁵¹ K: “It must be R. Simeon’s, since R. Simeon said, one may become disinterested after slaughtering” (up to the time of pouring the blood, Mishnah 8:3) is suspect as lectio facilior.