These (the following) things in the Pesach (offering) override the Sabbath [The Pesach overrides the Sabbath, it being written "in its appointed time" in respect to the Pesach, viz. (Numbers 9:2): "Let the Children of Israel offer the Pesach in its appointed time"; and, in respect to the tamid, viz. (Ibid. 28:2): "…shall you observe to offer to Me in its appointed time." Just as "in its appointed time" of the tamid overrides the Sabbath, viz. (Ibid. 28:10): "The burnt-offering of the Sabbath in its Sabbath, in addition to the tamid, etc.", so, "in its appointed time" of the Pesach overrides the Sabbath]: its slaughtering, the sprinkling of its blood [These cannot be done at night, it being written in that regard (Leviticus 7:38): "…on the day that He commanded to present, etc." — on the day, and not at night.], michui of its entrails ["michui" - "cleaning out," as in (Proverbs 30:20): "She eats and wipes (machthah) her mouth." The cleaning out of the entrails (so that they not putrefy) overrides the Sabbath], and the smoking of its fats. But its roasting and the rinsing out of its innards do not override the Sabbath, [for these can be done after dark]. Carrying it (the Paschal lamb) [on his shoulders to bring it through the public domain to the azarah — Even though only a (rabbinical) shvuth ("resting") interdict obtains (for "a living thing carries itself"), it does not override the Sabbath, for it should have been done the day before.], and [similarly] bringing it from outside the tchum (the Sabbath boundary), and the cutting off of its wart — these do not override the Sabbath. [The cutting off of the wart of a Pesach offering, to remove its blemish, even if it be only a shvuth transgression (as when he removes it with his teeth or his hand) does not override the Sabbath. As to our having learned (Eruvin 103a): "A wart may be cut off in the Temple" (on the Sabbath), that applies to a dry wart, which is brittle, whereas our Mishnah speaks of a moist wart. And notwithstanding the fact that when he removes it with his teeth or his hand, he is doing it in an unusual manner (kilacher yad), still, with a wet wart it is forbidden, for it could have been done the day before.] R. Eliezer says: They override the Sabbath, [ R. Eliezer holding (Shabbath 19a) that the "enablers" of a mitzvah override the Sabbath. ]

R. Eliezer said: Should this not follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if slaughtering, which [though it is forbidden on Shabbath with chullin (i.e., for secular purposes)] being an absolute labor, [notwithstanding this,] it overrides the Sabbath [with the Pesach offering], — these ("enablers"), which are (forbidden by reason of) shvuth, should they not certainly override the Sabbath! R. Yehoshua said to him: This argument is overturned by (what obtains on) a festival, absolute labor [(like slaughtering and cooking) being permitted to all men], and shvuth activities being forbidden [e.g., They forbade the bringing of something from outside the tchum to be eaten, in that this could have been done the day before, even though tchum is a rabbinic ordinance]. R. Eliezer rejoined: What is this, Yehoshua? How can you compare reshuth (what is merely permitted) to mitzvah? [A man's eating is reshuth, but the requirement of the Most High is mitzvah. And if the sages established their shvuth interdict with reshuth, should they do so also with mitzvah! (And R. Yehoshua holds that all "festival joy" is mitzvah, in spite of which it does not override the Sabbath)]. R. Akiva answered and said: Haza'ah (the sprinkling of the purifying waters) will overturn (R. Eliezer's argument), viz.: Haza'ah is a mitzvah [in the instance of one who has become unclean through a dead body, whose seventh day (in the process of purification) falls out on Sabbath on Pesach eve. If he is not sprinkled upon he cannot bring his Pesach offering, in spite of which haza'ah does not override the Sabbath, this being the ruling espoused by R. Akiva], and haza'ah is shvuth, [a man seeming to be "amended" thereby], and it does not override the Sabbath! Therefore, you, too, should not wonder about these ("enablers"). Even though they (the "enablers" of the Pesach offering) are mitzvah, and they are shvuth factors, they do not override the Sabbath. R. Eliezer rejoined: But I question that, too [i.e., I differ on haza'ah, too, and I contend that it should override the Sabbath so that it not keep him from the Pesach — from this a fortiori argument itself], viz.: Now if slaughtering, which is an absolute labor, overrides the Sabbath, haza'ah which is (only) a shvuth interdict, should it not certainly override the Sabbath! R. Akiva rejoined: Or turn it around [i.e., I can turn the argument around. (For it was axiomatic to R. Akiva that haza'ah kept one back from the Pesach offering, so that it could be reasoned a fortiori that slaughtering should also keep him back)], viz.: Now if haza'ah, which is (only) a shvuth interdict, does not override the Sabbath, slaughtering, which is an (absolute) labor — how much more so should it not override the Sabbath! R. Eliezer rejoined: Akiva, you have uprooted what is written in the Torah, viz. (Numbers 9:3): "towards evening, in its appointed time" [(Ibid. 2)): "Let the children of Israel offer the Pesach in its appointed time"], whether on a weekday or on the Sabbath. R. Akiva answered: My master, bring me "an appointed time" for these ("enablers")! [i.e., Show me that they have an appointed time as slaughtering does. Therefore, since they have no appointed time, and they could have been performed the day before, they do not override. (And haza'ah, too, is not a function of the Pesach offering itself, and "an appointed time" is not written in respect to it.) The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.] R. Akiva stated a rule: Any labor which could have been done Sabbath eve does not override the Sabbath. Slaughtering (of the Pesach), which could not have been done Sabbath eve, overrides the Sabbath.

When does one bring a chagigah (a festival offering) with it [with the Pesach on the fourteenth of Nissan]? When it (the fourteenth) falls on a weekday, (when the people are) in (a state of) cleanliness [For even though the Pesach overrides the Sabbath and uncleanliness, the chagigah does not], and with a small amount [i.e., when there is not enough of the Pesach to be eaten by the entire company, so that the chagigah is eaten first in order that their satiety be achieved with the Pesach]. And on the Sabbath, with a large amount [i.e., when the company is so small that the Pesach alone suffices for them], and in uncleanliness, a chagigah is not brought with it.

The chagigah comes from the flock and from cattle, from lambs and from goats, from males and from females [as opposed to the Pesach, which does not come from cattle or from females]; and it is eaten for two days and one night.

If one slaughtered the Pesach not lishmo (see 5:2) on [the fourteenth that fell out on] Sabbath, [thinking that just as it is permitted to slaughter it lishmo, so it is permitted to slaughter it lo lishmo], he is liable for a sin-offering, [having desecrated the Sabbath unwittingly]. And all other sacrifices which he slaughtered as a Pesach — If they are not fit [as a Pesach offering, such as a calf or a two-year-old ram, or a female], he is liable [for a sin-offering, if he forgot that it was Shabbath or if he thought that it was permitted to slaughter other sacrifices as a Pesach on Shabbath. For this is not "erring in a matter of mitzvah," all knowing that these (i.e., such animals) are not kasher as a Pesach.] And if they are fit, [as when he slaughtered a one-year-old shelamim (peace-offering) lamb as a Pesach, erring in this because of his preoccupation with the slaughtering of his Pesach, and not remembering that he had dedicated it as a different sacrifice], R. Eliezer says that he is liable (for a sin-offering) [even though he has "erred in a matter of mitzvah"]; and R. Yehoshua says that he is not liable, [holding that if one erred in a matter of mitzvah and yet performed some mitzvah, he is not liable for a sin-offering. And this one performed a mitzvah, for he sacrificed an offering. For all offerings sacrificed lo lishman are kasher. And R. Yehoshua rules (Pesachim 62b) that even those which are slaughtered as a Pesach are kasher.] R. Eliezer said to him: Now if the Pesach, which it is permitted [to slaughter on Shabbath] lishmo, if he changes its name, [you nevertheless admit] that he is liable [for a sin-offering, as we learned above] — (other) sacrifices, which are forbidden (on Shabbath) lishman, if he changes their name, should it not follow, all the more, that he is liable! R. Yehoshua rejoined: No, in the instance of the Pesach, he changed the name to something which is forbidden [i.e., he slaughtered it in the name of a different offering, which it is forbidden to slaughter on Shabbath], whereas in the instance of the other sacrifices, where he changed the name to something which is permitted, [i.e., where he slaughtered it as something (a Pesach) which it is permitted to slaughter on Shabbath], (say that he is not liable for an offering)! R. Eliezer rejoined: (Offerings) specified for the congregation [on Shabbath, such as temidim and mussafim overturn your argument], it being permitted to slaughter them lishman, and yet if one slaughters [other sacrifices] in their name (i.e., as communal offerings), he is liable (for a sin-offering)! R. Yehoshua rejoined: No, in the instance of offerings specified for the congregation there is a set number [He does not see others involved in slaughtering, and once the tamid has been slaughtered, he knows that there is no need to slaughter another, so that (if he does) he is not "erring" but "unwitting," for he should not err in such a thing.], whereas in the instance of Pesach, there is no set amount, [for everyone requires it. So that he sees many people busied with it and he becomes preoccupied with the mitzvah. And even if he had already slaughtered a Pesach and found this animal standing in the azarah and thought it was a Pesach and slaughtered it for someone else, this is "erring in a matter of mitzvah"] (and he should not be liable for a sin-offering). R. Meir says: Also one who slaughters [on Shabbath other offerings, all the days of the year] as an offering specified for the congregation, is not liable. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehoshua and it is not in accordance with R. Meir.]

If he slaughtered it (on Shabbath) not for its eaters, and not for those counted for it, for the uncircumcised, and for the unclean, he is liable (for a sin-offering). (If he slaughtered it) for its eaters and not for its eaters, for those counted for it and for those not counted for it, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, for the clean and the unclean, he is not liable, [for the Pesach is kasher, as stated above (5:3)]. If he slaughtered it and he discovered it to be blemished, he is liable (for a sin-offering) [for he is shogeg ("unwitting") and not anuss ("constrained"), for he should have inspected it (before he slaughtered it).] If he slaughtered it and found it to be treifah in a hidden part (which he could not have inspected beforehand), he is not liable. If he slaughtered it and found out that the owners had "withdrawn their hands" [from it before it was slaughtered and had numbered themselves with a different offering], or if they had died or become unclean, [in which instance Shabbath is not overridden for them], he is not liable, having slaughtered with permission [i.e., He is regarded as "anuss," not having known that this was the case and not having been expected to inquire about it.]