Pesachim 66b — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection concerning this: How is it permitted to insert the knife into its wool or between its horns?

And

after all,

he is performing labor with consecrated animals

by using the offering to carry a load, and he transgresses the prohibition “You shall not work with the firstborn” [for from the firstborn offering it is learned to prohibit using all offerings]!?

And we answer: They did not use the offering to carry a load, because they acted

like Hillel

who consecrated it only in the Temple, after it had already carried the knife.

As it was taught: They said about him, about Hillel,

that

throughout his life no person committed misuse with his burnt offering

because there was no interval between its consecration and its sacrifice.

Rather,

he

would bring it

to the Temple courtyard while it was

non-sacred, to the Temple courtyard.

And he would consecrate it

there,

and

immediately

he would place his hands upon it and slaughter it.

And we wonder: How is it possible to establish that he consecrated the Passover offering

on Shabbat

in the Temple courtyard? After all,

how could he consecrate it

—how could they consecrate it on Shabbat, and how can it be said, as we established, that they acted like Hillel?

And we learned in the Mishna: One may not consecrate, nor designate valuations, nor designate something as herem, nor separate teruma and tithes.

All these—

they said with regard to a Festival.

And

a kal va-chomer

that they do not do this

on Shabbat!

And we answer:

These matters

that one may not consecrate on Shabbat apply specifically

to

types of offerings

whose obligations do not have a fixed time,

which are not slaughtered on Shabbat, and therefore one may not consecrate them on Shabbat for the sake of sacrificing them on a weekday.

But with regard to obligations whose time is fixed,

since the time of the offering is for it to be slaughtered on Shabbat,

one may consecrate

them even on Shabbat.

And similarly

as Rabbi Yohanan said: A person may consecrate his Paschal offering on Shabbat, and

his

festival peace-offering on a Festival.

And he specifically stated that one may consecrate the Paschal offering on Shabbat, and not on a Festival, because the Paschal offering is never slaughtered on a Festival, but only on the eve of the Festival.

And he stated that one may consecrate the festival peace-offering on a Festival, and not on Shabbat, because the festival peace-offering does not override Shabbat, although it is sacrificed on a Festival.

And furthermore, we raised an objection concerning this: Even if he consecrated it only in the Temple courtyard, close to the slaughter, there is still a difficulty:

How is it permitted to bring the knife by means of the animal?

But does he not,

since he leads the animal while the load of the knife is upon it, transgress because of the prohibition of

leading an animal bearing a load?

For it is forbidden for a person to lead an animal carrying a load on Shabbat when he is “leading it with a load.” [ [A0059]]And this is not the prohibition of “the resting of one’s animal,” which is a positive-commandment prohibition, because carrying the knife does not interfere with “the resting of the animal.” Rather, it is the negative-commandment prohibition of “leading an animal with a load,” learned from the verse “You shall not perform any labor—you and your animal,” from which we learned that it is forbidden for a person to perform labor jointly with an animal. This is the labor of leading an animal with a load: the animal carries a load and the person leads it.]

This is not the prohibition that an animal must cease from labor on Shabbat, which is a positive commandment, because carrying the knife does not interfere with the animal’s cessation from labor. Rather, it is the negative prohibition against causing an animal to carry a load, derived from the verse, “You shall not perform any labor—you, your animal,” from which we learn that a person may not perform labor jointly with an animal. This is the labor of causing an animal to carry a load: the animal carries a burden and the person leads it.]

And we answer:

Leading an animal with a load is

in an unusual manner,

because it is not the way of a lamb to carry a load.

And we challenge this: What answer is this? After all,

leading an animal with a load in an unusual manner also

is forbidden?

For

although

it is true

that there is no prohibition from the Torah,

but

there is, at least, a rabbinic prohibition!?

And we answer:

This is,

this question is the question

that the sons of Beteira were asking

from

him,

Hillel:

And this is what they asked him:

Is leading the animal with a load permitted for the sake of sacrificing the Paschal offering on Shabbat, when he performs the leading in a manner that is

a matter that has permission from the Torah,

when it is not complete leading with a load—for example, when he places the knife between its horns and in its wool, and it is not the way of a lamb to carry a load, so that according to the Torah it is permitted?

And

also the

“matter of resting”

of rabbinic origin [as they prohibited even leading an animal with a load in an unusual manner], which

stands before him

to prevent him from leading it with a load, is not similar to the other rabbinic prohibitions of resting.

Since an unusual manner is a matter that is not common, and its degree of severity as a rabbinic prohibition is lighter than an ordinary rabbinic decree of resting.

And therefore they were uncertain whether it is possible

to uproot

the rabbinic prohibition of resting that the Sages prohibited for something done

in an unusual manner,

and permit it

in a place

of need for a

mitzva?

As here, where it is necessary to lead the animal with a load in an unusual manner for the sake of sacrificing the Paschal offering—

what is the ruling?

He said to them: I heard this halakha, and I forgot it,

what the halakha is.

Rather, leave Israel alone: Even if they are not prophets,

they are the children of prophets.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Anyone who acts arrogantly—if he is a sage,

his wisdom departs from him.

If he is a prophet,

his prophecy departs from him.

If he is a sage, his wisdom departs from him—

we learned this

from

the incident that occurred with

Hillel.

As the master said

in a beraita:

He began taunting them with words.

And since he behaved toward them arrogantly, his wisdom departed from him—and

he said to them: I heard this halakha, and I forgot it.

If he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him—

we learned this

from Deborah,

the prophetess.

As it is written

in the song of Deborah [Judges 5]:

“The open places ceased in Israel, they ceased.

Until I arose, Deborah, I arose as a mother in Israel.”

And

since she said this arrogantly, her prophecy departed from her, and she became silent, and she had to say that which is

written [

Judges 5]

“Awake, awake, Deborah; awake, awake, utter a song.”

Reish Lakish said: Anyone who becomes angry—if he is a sage,

his wisdom departs from him.

If he is a prophet,

his prophecy departs from him.

If he is a sage, his wisdom departs from him—

we learned this

from Moses.

As it is written [

Numbers 31]

“And Moses became angry with the commanders of the army.”

And it is written [

Numbers 31]

“And Elazar the koen said to the men of the army who came to the battle: This is the statute of the Torah that the Lord commanded Moses.”

By inference, Moses had forgotten

the law of the purification of vessels belonging to gentiles.

If he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him—

we learned this

from Elisha.

As it is written [

II Kings 3], that when Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, joined Jehoram, king of Israel, for war against Moab, and they suffered a severe shortage of water, they came to Elisha so that he would offer prayer on their behalf.

And when Elisha saw Jehoram, king of Israel, he became very angry, and said to him: “What have I to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and to the prophets of your mother!”

And in his anger Elisha swore and said to Jehoram: “As the Lord of Hosts lives, before whom I have stood, for

were it not for the presence of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah,

who came with you to me, whose presence

I honor [

respecting],

I would neither look at you nor see you.”

And it is written [

II Kings 3]

“And now, bring me a musician.

And it was, when the musician played,

and then,

the hand of the Lord came upon him.”

And it follows that beforehand his prophecy had departed from him because of his anger, and it returned to him through playing music before him.

Rabbi Mani bar Patis said: Anyone

who

becomes angry, even if greatness is decreed for him from Heaven,

they lower him.

From where do we know this?—

from Eliav,

David’s brother.

As it is stated [

I Samuel 17]:

“And Eliav’s anger burned against David

when he saw him coming to the battle against Goliath].

And he said

to him:

“Why have you come down here?

And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness?

I know your insolence and the evil of your heart, for you came down in order to see the battle.”

And

therefore,

when Samuel went to anoint him

—one of the brothers, the sons of Jesse, as king over Israel, and they all passed before him—

with all of them,

all David’s brothers,

it is written [

I Samuel 16] that Samuel said:

“The Lord has not chosen this one.”

And it follows that he had never been chosen for this.

And

if

with regard to Eliav it were written [

I Samuel 16]

“And the Lord said to Samuel: Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature,

for I have rejected him!”

By inference, He had loved him

for previously the Lord had loved him, and had chosen him

until now,

when He became angry with David and was angered by him; through this he forfeited the kingship, and David was chosen in his place.

And now the Gemara returns to explain the conclusion [on the previous folio] that the Paschal offering and the daily offering override Shabbat, since with regard to the daily offering it is stated, “the burnt offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat—in addition to the daily burnt offering,” whereas the Paschal offering is learned from it by the gzera shava of “its appointed time, its appointed time.” But this is not learned from “at its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering and the Paschal offering.

And now we must discuss:

For granted, if we were to learn from “at its appointed time” that the Paschal offering and the daily offering override Shabbat, we could also learn from “at its appointed time” that they override impurity.

But now, since we do not learn this from “at its appointed time”— -

Indeed,

we have found

a source that

the daily offering and the Paschal offering override Shabbat [the daily offering overrides Shabbat from the verse “in addition to the daily offering,” and the Paschal offering is learned from it by a gzera shava].

But that the daily offering and the Paschal offering

override impurity—

from where do we know this?

They say: Just as the Paschal offering is learned from the daily offering with regard to Shabbat

by the gzera shava “its appointed time, its appointed time”—

so too, the daily offering is learned from the Paschal offering with regard to impurity,

which is overridden before it.

And the Paschal offering itself—

from where do we know

that it overrides impurity when the majority of the public is impure?

For we learned below, in the chapter “How They Roast” [76b], that communal offerings override impurity. And the Paschal offering is also considered a communal offering, since it is brought in a gathering, in an assembly of many people, as each and every member of the public brings it; therefore its law is considered that of a communal offering.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The verse says [

Numbers 9]:

“Any person who will become impure through a dead person,”

and he is deferred from the first Paschal offering to the second Paschal offering.

And we must infer from the wording of the verse, “any person,” that only

“a person”,

that is, a single impure person by himself, is

deferred to the second Paschal offering.

But

the public

, when the majority of the public became impure,

are not deferred to the second Paschal offering!

Rather, they perform the first Paschal offering in impurity.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan: Say

that this is the intention of the verse:

a single person

is deferred to the second Paschal offering—

but

the public has no remedy, neither with the first Paschal offering nor with the second Paschal offering!

Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: From here

we learn that the Paschal offering overrides impurity:

As it is stated [Numbers 5]:

“And they shall send from the camp every leper, everyone with a discharge, and everyone impure through a dead person.”

Let the verse say

to send

those impure through the dead, and let it not say [there would be no need for it to say]

those with a discharge and lepers.

“They shall send from the camp everyone with an infectious skin disease, everyone with a discharge, and everyone impure through contact with a corpse.”

And I

reason it out myself and

say: If those impure through the dead are sent away

from the camp,

those with a discharge and lepers,

whose impurity is more severe than impurity from a dead person,

is it not all the more so

that they are sent away from it!

Rather, the verse needed to write those with a discharge and lepers, to teach us that they are sent away in a place from which one impure through the dead is not sent away.

those with discharges and those with infectious skin diseases,

whose impurity is more severe than impurity through contact with a corpse,

all the more so

they should be sent away from it!

Rather, the verse had to mention those with discharges and those with infectious skin diseases in order to teach us that they are sent away in a situation where one who is impure through contact with a corpse is not sent away.