פסחים דף עא

בשעת שמחה, וליכא. משום חגיגה: הוי דבר שבחובה, וכל דבר שבחובה אינו בא אלא מן החולין.

at the time of rejoicing, on the Festival itself, and if it was slaughtered on the fourteenth it is not. The mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering is also not fulfilled, for it is something that is an obligation, as everyone is obligated to bring this offering, and the principle is that anything that is an obligation must come only from that which is unconsecrated, meaning that one cannot bring an obligatory offering from an animal that has already been consecrated for another purpose.

לימא מסייע ליה: ״והיית אך שמח״ — לרבות לילי יום טוב האחרון לשמחה. אתה אומר לילי יום טוב האחרון, או אינו אלא לילי יום טוב הראשון? תלמוד לומר:

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that a baraita supports him. The verse states: “Seven days shall you celebrate to the Lord your God in the place that the Lord shall choose, for the Lord your God shall bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, and you shall be but joyous” (Deuteronomy 16:15). This verse seems superfluous, as it was already stated in the previous verse: “And you shall rejoice in your Festival.” The baraita expounds: “And you shall be but joyous” comes to include the last night of the Festival. Even then you must make sure there is rejoicing by eating the appropriate peace-offerings. The baraita considers: Do you say that the verse comes to include the last night of the Festival? Or perhaps it comes to include only the first night of the Festival. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall be but joyous”; the word “but” restricts this mitzva, meaning that there is not always a mitzva to be joyous.

״אך (שמח)״ — חלק.

מאי טעמא? לאו משום דאין לו במה ישמח!

The Gemara clarifies how this baraita supports Ulla: What is the reason that we learn from this expression that it is specifically on the first night that there is no mitzva of rejoicing? Is it not because on the first night he has nothing with which to rejoice? As Ulla said, one cannot fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing with a peace-offering that was slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, because it was not slaughtered at the time of rejoicing. On the last night of the Festival, on the other hand, one can rejoice with a peace-offering that was slaughtered the previous day, i.e., the last intermediate day of the Festival, which is also a time of rejoicing.

לא, כדתני טעמא: מה ראית לרבות לילי יום טוב האחרון ולהוציא לילי יום טוב ראשון? מרבה אני לילי יום טוב האחרון שיש שמחה לפניו,

The Gemara rejects this support: No, it is not for this reason, but rather for the reason taught in the continuation of the baraita: What did you see to include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing and to exclude the first night of the Festival, a distinction that is not even hinted at in the verse? The baraita explains: I include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing, for there is rejoicing on the days of the Festival preceding it, and I exclude the first night of the Festival, for there is no day of rejoicing preceding it. Thus, no support for Ulla can be deduced from the baraita.

ומוציא אני לילי יום טוב ראשון שאין שמחה לפניו.

מתיב רב יוסף: חגיגת ארבעה עשר יוצא בה משום שמחה, ואין יוצא בה משום חגיגה. אמאי? הא בעינן זביחה בשעת שמחה, וליכא!

Rav Yosef raised an objection against the opinion of Ulla: It was taught in a baraita with regard to the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth that one fulfills with it the mitzva to bring peace-offerings of rejoicing, but one does not fulfill with it the mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering. We can ask, why? Surely, according to Ulla, we require that the slaughter be performed at a time of rejoicing, and this requirement is not fulfilled in this case. The Gemara answers: Rav Idi bar Avin said that the baraita is referring here to a case where he delayed and slaughtered it only on the fifteenth, i.e., on the Festival, which is a time of rejoicing.

אמר רב אידי בר אבין: שעיכב ושחטה.

אמר רב אשי: הכי נמי מסתברא, דאי לא תימא הכי, הא מתניתא מאן קתני לה? בן תימא — בן תימא הא פסלה לה בלינה! שמע מינה.

Rav Ashi said: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita in this manner, for if you do not say so, but rather that the Festival peace-offering was slaughtered on the fourteenth, there is a difficulty, for who taught this baraita? Is it not ben Teima who taught it? According to ben Teima, however, he has disqualified it by leaving it overnight, for in his view this Festival peace-offering is similar to a Paschal lamb and may not be eaten the following day. Learn from this that the baraita must be referring to a case where the Festival peace-offering was slaughtered not on the fourteenth, but on the fifteenth.

מתיב רבא: ההלל והשמחה שמנה. ואי אמרת בעינן זביחה בשעת שמחה, הא זמנין סגיאין דלא משכחת לה אלא שבעה, כגון שחל יום טוב הראשון להיות בשבת!

Rava raised an objection against the opinion of Ulla: It was taught in a baraita that the hallel is recited and the mitzva of rejoicing with the peace-offerings of rejoicing is observed on the festival of Sukkot for eight days. Now if you say we require that the slaughter be performed at a time of rejoicing, many times you find that the mitzva of rejoicing is observed for only seven days, such as when the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, when a peace-offering of rejoicing may not be slaughtered. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, said: One rejoices with the male goats of the Festivals. That is to say, in such a situation the mitzva of rejoicing can be fulfilled with the meat of the goats that are brought on the Festivals as sin-offerings, as these offerings, being communal offerings, may be slaughtered even on Shabbat.

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהודה: משמחו בשעירי הרגלים.

אמר רבא, שתי תשובות בדבר: חדא, דשעירי הרגלים חי נאכלין צלי אין נאכלין, ושמחה בחי ליכא. ועוד, כהנים אוכלין וישראל במה שמחים? אלא אמר רב פפא:

Rava said: There are two possible responses to refute this. One is that the male goats of the Festivals are eaten raw and are not eaten roasted. Being a non-essential part of the service, roasting the meat is forbidden on Shabbat. Therefore, the meat can be eaten only raw, and there is no rejoicing with raw meat. And furthermore, only the priests eat of the meat of these sin-offerings. With what then do ordinary Israelites rejoice? Rather, Rav Pappa said: In such a situation, one rejoices with clean clothes and old wine.

משמחו בכסות נקיה ויין ישן.

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי אלעזר: שלמים ששחטן מערב יום טוב יוצא בהן משום שמחה ואין יוצא בהן משום חגיגה.

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related a different version of what Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to peace-offerings that one slaughtered on the eve of the Festival, one fulfills with them the mitzva to bring peace-offerings of rejoicing, but one does not fulfill with them the mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering. He explains: One fulfills the mitzva of rejoicing, because we do not require that the slaughter be performed at the time of rejoicing as long as the offering is eaten at the time of rejoicing. But one does not fulfill the mitzva of the Festival peace-offering, because the Festival peace-offering is something that is an obligation, and the principle is that anything that is an obligation must come only from unconsecrated animals.

יוצא משום שמחה — לא בעינן זביחה בשעת שמחה. ולא משום חגיגה — הוי דבר שבחובה, וכל דבר שבחובה אינו בא אלא מן החולין.

מיתיבי: ״והיית אך שמח״ — לרבות לילי יום טוב האחרון לשמחה. אתה אומר לרבות לילי יום טוב האחרון, או אינו אלא לרבות לילי יום טוב הראשון?

The Gemara raises an objection against Ravin from the baraita that was taught above: “And you shall be but joyous” comes to include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing. The baraita considers: Do you say that the verse comes to include the last night in the mitzva of rejoicing? Or perhaps it comes to include only the first night of the Festival? Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall be but joyous”; the word “but” restricts this mitzva, meaning that there is not always a mitzva to be joyous.

תלמוד לומר ״אך״ — חלק.

מאי טעמא? לאו משום דאין לו במה ישמח! לא, כדתניא: מה ראית לרבות לילי יום טוב האחרון ולהוציא לילי יום טוב הראשון?

The Gemara explains how this baraita is difficult according to Ravin: What is the reason that we learn from here that it is specifically on the first night that there is no mitzva of rejoicing? Is it not because on the first night he has nothing with which to rejoice, as one cannot fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing with peace-offerings slaughtered not at a time of rejoicing? The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the reason is as it was taught in the continuation of the baraita: What did you see to include the last night of the Festival in the mitzva of rejoicing and to exclude the first night of the Festival? The baraita explains: I include the last night of the Festival, for there is rejoicing on the days of the Festival preceding it, and I exclude the first night of the Festival, for there is no day of rejoicing preceding it.

מרבה אני לילי יום טוב האחרון שיש שמחה לפניו, ומוציא אני לילי יום טוב הראשון שאין שמחה לפניו.

אמר רב כהנא: מנין לאימורי חגיגת חמשה עשר שנפסלין בלינה? שנאמר: ״ולא ילין חלב חגי עד בקר״, וסמיך ליה ״ראשית״ למימרא דהאי בקר — בקר ראשון.

Rav Kahana said: From where is it derived that the sacrificial parts of the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth of Nisan, i.e., those portions of the offering that are consumed on the altar, are disqualified when left overnight on the first night after the offering is slaughtered, despite the fact that the meat of the offering may be consumed for an additional day? As it is stated: “You shall not offer the blood of My offering with leaven; neither shall the fat of my Festival offering be left over until morning” (Exodus 23:18), and, juxtaposed with it is the word first, in the verse: “The first of the first fruits of your land you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God” (Exodus 23:19). This comes to say to us that the morning mentioned in the first verse is the first morning after the offering has been sacrificed.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף: טעמא דכתב ״ראשית״, הא לא כתב ״ראשית״ הוה אמינא מאי בקר — בקר שני. מי איכא מידי דבשר איפסיל ליה מאורתא, ואמורין עד צפרא?

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this proof: The reason is that it wrote the word first. But had it not written the word first, I would have said: What is the meaning of the term morning? The second morning after it was sacrificed. This raises a question: Is there anything like this where the meat of an offering that is to be eaten is disqualified already from the evening, as the meat of a Festival peace-offering may be eaten only for two days and the night between them, while the sacrificial parts to be consumed on the altar are permitted until the next morning?

אמר ליה אביי: אלמה לא? והרי פסח לרבי אלעזר בן עזריה, דבשר איפסיל ליה מחצות, ואמורין עד צפרא!

Abaye said to him: Why not? For there is the Paschal offering according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who holds that the meat that is to be eaten is disqualified already from midnight and may no longer be eaten after that time, while the sacrificial parts to be consumed on the altar may be offered until morning.

אמר רבא, רב יוסף הכי קא קשיא ליה: מי איכא מידי דאלו תנא לבשר לא בעי ״ראשית״, ורב כהנא לאימורין בעי ״ראשית״?

Rava said: This is what was difficult to Rav Yosef: Is there anything like this, i.e., that the tanna does not need the word “first” to teach us that the word “morning,” written with regard to the meat of an offering, is referring to the first morning, whereas Rav Kahana requires the word “first” to teach us that the word “morning,” written with regard to the sacrificial portions to be consumed on the altar, is referring to the first morning? This is despite the fact that the latter, owing to their greater sanctity, are obviously more easily disqualified than the former.

מאי היא? דתניא: ״לא ילין מן הבשר אשר תזבח בערב ביום הראשון לבקר״,

The Gemara asks: What is this source alluded to by Rava? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Nor shall any of the meat that you sacrifice on the first day at evening remain overnight until the morning” (Deuteronomy 16:4),

לימד על חגיגת ארבעה עשר שנאכלת לשני ימים ולילה אחד. או אינו אלא ליום ולילה? כשהוא אומר: ״ביום הראשון לבקר״ — הרי בקר שני אמור.

this verse teaches that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is eaten for two days and one night; that is, it may not remain overnight until the morning of the sixteenth. Or perhaps it is eaten for only a day and a night; that is, it may not remain overnight until the morning of the fifteenth. Since for that it would have sufficed to say that an offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight,” when it says that an offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight until the morning” (Deuteronomy 16:4), the extra phrase “until the morning” indicates that the verse speaks of the second morning.

או אינו אלא בקר ראשון, ומה אני מקיים חגיגה הנאכלת לשני ימים ולילה אחד — חוץ מזו, כשהוא אומר בו: ״אם נדר או נדבה״ — לימד על

There is still room to say: Or perhaps it is eaten only until the first morning, and how do I establish what the Torah says, that a Festival peace-offering may be eaten for two days and one night? This applies to Festival peace-offerings other than this one. The baraita explains: When it says with regard to a peace-offering: “But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow or a free-will offering, it shall be eaten on the same day that he sacrifices his offering; and on the morrow also, the remainder of it shall be eaten” (Leviticus 7:16), it teaches that any peace-offering, whether a vow or a free-will offering, or an obligation, including the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, is eaten for two days and one night.

חגיגת ארבעה עשר שנאכלת לשני ימים ולילה אחד.

אמר מר: או אינו אלא בקר ראשון. הא אמרת: כשהוא אומר ״ביום הראשון (לבקר)״ — הרי בקר שני אמור? הכי קאמר: או אינו אלא בשתי חגיגות הכתוב מדבר,

The Master said above in the baraita: Or perhaps it is only the first morning. The Gemara asks: But you already said that when it says that any offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight until the morning,” the extra phrase “until the morning” indicates that the verse speaks of the second morning. What need is there then to prove this a second time? The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: Or perhaps it is only that the verse is speaking about two different Festival peace-offerings, one being the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth and one the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, and the halakha is that this, the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, may be eaten for only a day and a night until its morning, the morning of the fifteenth, and this, the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, may be eaten for only a day and a night until its morning, the sixteenth of Nisan.

אחת חגיגת ארבעה עשר ואחת חגיגת חמשה עשר, וזו לבוקרה וזו לבוקרה.

הדר אמר: אלא דקיימא לן חגיגה הנאכלת לשני ימים ולילה אחד. אם כן: ״אם נדר או נדבה״ במאי? אי חגיגת ארבעה עשר, הא כתיב בה יום ולילה!

It then says: But with regard to that which we maintain, that a Festival peace-offering may be eaten for two days and one night, if so, the verse that addresses a peace-offering and says: “But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow or a free-will offering,” with regard to what case is it discussing? If it is talking about the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, surely it is written about it, according to this interpretation, that it is eaten for only a day and a night. And if it is talking about the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, surely it is written about it that it too is eaten for only a day and a night.

אי חגיגת חמשה עשר, הא כתיב בה יום ולילה!

אלא, האי לחגיגת חמשה עשר, והאיך כוליה קרא לחגיגת ארבעה עשר, לימד על חגיגת ארבעה עשר שנאכלת לשני ימים ולילה אחד.

Rather, this verse that discusses a vow or free-will offering clearly must be discussing the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, and the entire other verse: “Nor shall…remain overnight until the morning,” is referring to the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth and thus has taught that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is eaten for two days and one night.

טעמא דכתיב ״ביום הראשון לבקר״, דמאי ״בקר״ — בקר שני. הא כל היכא דכתיב בקר סתמא — בקר ראשון, ואף על גב דלא כתב ביה ״ראשית״.

The Gemara returns to what it wanted to prove with regard to the term “first”: The reason is that it is written that an offering sacrificed “on the first day shall not remain overnight until the morning,” for what is the implication of the word morning? The second morning. We can infer from here that wherever the term morning is written unmodified and without further specification, it is referring to the first morning after the offering was sacrificed, even though the word “first” is not written in relation to “morning.” Thus, Rav Kahana’s derivation from the word “first” was unnecessary.

מתני׳ הפסח ששחטו שלא לשמו בשבת — חייב עליו חטאת.

MISHNA: A Paschal lamb that one slaughtered for a different purpose on Shabbat, not knowing that it is prohibited for him to do so, is disqualified, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for it because he unwittingly performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat.

ושאר כל הזבחים ששחטן לשם פסח, אם אינן ראויין — חייב, ואם ראויין הן — רבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת, ורבי יהושע פוטר.

As for all other offerings, such as a peace-offering, that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, e.g., if they were female or cattle or more than a year old and clearly ineligible for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Because he did not fulfill the mitzva to bring a Paschal offering, his act of slaughter was therefore unnecessary. And if they were fit, Rabbi Eliezer nevertheless deems him liable to bring a sin-offering for his unwitting transgression. But Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him, because he maintains that if someone intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error he in fact performed a mitzva, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. And in this case he performed a mitzva, because offerings that are sacrificed for a different purpose are still fit.

אמר ליה רבי אליעזר: מה אם הפסח שהוא מותר לשמו, כששינה את שמו — חייב, זבחים שהן אסורין לשמן, כששינה את שמן — אינו דין שיהא חייב?

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: If, with regard to the Paschal lamb, which is permitted to be slaughtered on Shabbat for its own purpose, when one changed its purpose he is nevertheless liable, then, with regard to other offerings that are forbidden to be slaughtered on Shabbat even for their own purpose, when one changed their purpose, is it not right that he should be liable? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, this reasoning is faulty. If you say that one is liable to bring a sin-offering if he slaughtered a Paschal lamb for a different purpose, it is because he changed its purpose for something forbidden, as the offering he intended it to be may not be slaughtered on Shabbat. But can you necessarily say the same thing about other offerings that he slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering and thus changed their purpose for something that is permitted to be sacrificed on Shabbat?

אמר ליה רבי יהושע: לא, אם אמרת בפסח ששינהו בדבר אסור, תאמר בזבחים ששינן בדבר המותר.

אמר ליה רבי אליעזר: אימורי ציבור יוכיחו, שהן מותרין לשמן, והשוחט לשמן חייב. אמר ליה רבי יהושע: לא, אם אמרת באימורי ציבור שיש להן קצבה,

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Let the communal offerings, such as the daily offering and the additional-offerings of Shabbat and the Festivals, prove the matter, for they are permitted to be slaughtered on Shabbat for their own purpose, and nevertheless, one who unnecessarily slaughters a different offering for their purpose is liable. This indicates that even when a particular offering may be slaughtered, one is nevertheless liable if he slaughtered a different offering for the purpose of the permitted offering. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, if you say this halakha with regard to communal offerings, it is because they have a limit, as there is a specific number of communal offerings that must be offered on any particular day and there is no reason one would mistakenly sacrifice extra offerings for this purpose. But can you necessarily say the same thing about the Paschal lamb, which does not have a limit, making it more likely for someone to make a mistake?

תאמר בפסח שאין לו קצבה.

רבי מאיר אומר: אף השוחט לשם אימורי ציבור — פטור.

Rabbi Meir says: According to Rabbi Yehoshua, even one who unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings beyond their daily limit is exempt for the same reason, i.e., that he intended to fulfill a mitzva that is permitted on Shabbat.

שחטו שלא לאוכליו ושלא למנויו, לערלין ולטמאין — חייב. לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו, למנויו ושלא למנויו, למולין ולערלים, לטמאין ולטהורין — פטור.

The mishna continues with another halakha with regard to the Paschal lamb: If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and mistakenly intended it for those who cannot eat it, such as sick or elderly people who are unable to eat the meat, or for those who did not register for it, or for the sake of the uncircumcised or for those ritually impure, the offering is disqualified and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for his unnecessary act of slaughter. If, however, he slaughtered it for those who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it, or for those who registered for it and for those who did not register for it, or for the circumcised and for those who are uncircumcised, or for those who are ritually impure and those who are ritually pure, he is exempt. Since a Paschal lamb slaughtered with dual intentions of these types is valid, the act of slaughter was justified.

שחטו ונמצא בעל מום — חייב. שחטו ונמצא טריפה בסתר — פטור.

If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish, the offering is disqualified, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having unwittingly performed a prohibited labor on Shabbat, as he should have examined the animal before it was slaughtered. If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a hidden condition that would cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] and that could not have been discovered before the slaughter even if it were examined properly, the offering is disqualified, but he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This is not a case of shogeg, unwitting violation of Shabbat, but rather of ones, an unavoidable accident.

שחטו ונודע שמשכו הבעלים את ידם, או שמתו או שנטמאו — פטור, מפני ששחט ברשות.

If he slaughtered it and afterward it became known that the owners had withdrawn from it and registered for a different Paschal lamb, in which case this one was slaughtered unnecessarily, as no one was registered for it, or it became known that they had died or became ritually impure, in all these cases he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he slaughtered with permission. At the time of the slaughter, he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the offering would be disqualified.