Pesachim 68b (סח:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

and the burning of its fats

of the Paschal offering overrides Shabbat.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how beloved a mitzva is,

that one must hasten to perform it

at its proper time.

For although the burning of fats, limbs, and sacrificial parts is valid throughout the entire night, and

nevertheless

we do not wait for them

to burn them

until nightfall,

but burn them immediately, even on Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna:

bringing it on an animal and bringing it

and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat.

And we raise a contradiction

from the Mishna in tractate Eruvin:

One may cut

on Shabbat by hand

a wart

that is found on the daily offering [because it is a blemish

in the Temple].

Although cutting off the wart involves the labor of shearing, and it could have been done the previous day, it is nevertheless permitted to cut it. Since he does so by hand, his action is considered an irregular manner of performing a labor, and it is prohibited on Shabbat only by rabbinic decree as a shevut. And the Sages did not enact a decree concerning a shevut in the Temple.

But one may not

cut off a wart

in the provinces,

even by hand, because of the rabbinic shevut.

And if

he comes to cut it

with an implement,

which constitutes the Torah labor of shearing, then—

in both places,

in the Temple and in the provinces,

it is prohibited.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina disagreed over how to resolve the contradiction between cutting off the wart of the Paschal offering and cutting off the wart of the daily offering:

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina.

One said: In both cases,

with regard to both offerings, the case is one in which he came to cut off the wart

by hand.

And there is no difficulty.

This

case, in which we learned in our Mishna that one may not cut off the wart of the Paschal offering on Shabbat, refers

to a

wart that is

moist,

as cutting it with an implement would constitute the Torah labor of shearing. Therefore, it is prohibited to cut it even in an irregular manner, when cutting it by hand, and even on the Paschal offering, since it could have been cut on the eve of Shabbat.

Whereas

this

case, in which we learned in tractate Eruvin that one may cut off the wart of the daily offering, refers

to a

wart that is

dry,

as cutting it does not involve the Torah prohibition of shearing, even when done with an implement. Rather, the Sages decreed that it not be cut either by hand or with an implement, because of a rabbinic shevut. Therefore, they permitted cutting it on the daily offering. But this applies specifically when it is done by hand and not with an implement, because with an implement “he performs an act of labor” in repairing the offering [the wording of Rashi in tractate Eruvin].

And one said: In both cases, it is a moist wart.

And there is no difficulty.

This

case, in which we learned in tractate Eruvin that it is permitted to cut the wart from the daily offering, refers to one who cuts it

by hand,

which is an irregular manner of performing a labor. Cutting by hand [which is an irregular manner of performing a labor] is prohibited only because of a shevut, and the Sages did not enact a shevut in the Temple.

This

case of our Mishna refers to one who cuts it

with an implement,

which is the ordinary form of the Torah labor of shearing, and it was not permitted even for the Paschal offering, since it could have been done the previous day.

The Gemara explains why each of them did not accept the other’s resolution:

And according to the one who said

that he resolved the contradiction by saying

“This case is by hand, and that case is with an implement”—

what is the reason he did not say

“In both cases it is by hand, and there is no difficulty,

because

this case is a moist wart

and

that case is a dry wart”?

He could say to you: A dry wart—

is crumbly;

it disintegrates, and its removal cannot be regarded as an act of repairing the offering even when the cutting is done with an implement. Therefore, it is impossible to establish the permission to cut the wart of the daily offering as referring to a dry wart, since we learned there that it is prohibited to cut it with an implement and permitted only by hand; whereas according to his explanation, a dry wart would be permitted even with an implement.

And according to the one who said

“In both cases it is by hand, and there is no difficulty: This case is a moist wart and that case is a dry wart”—

what is the reason he did not say

“In both cases it is a moist wart, and there is no difficulty: This case is by hand and that case is with an implement”?

He could say to you: If you establish our Mishna as prohibiting the cutting of the wart of the Paschal offering because it is done with an

implement,

implement,

then our Mishna is superfluous, and there is no need to teach it.

For

this

has already

been taught there: “If it is with an implement”—

in both places,

in the Temple and in the provinces,

it is prohibited.

And the other one would say: The fact that an implement was taught here—

although we already learned in tractate Eruvin that it is prohibited with an implement—is because

the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua

concerning whether the requirements of a mitzva that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat override Shabbat

is what it comes to teach us.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer said:

Is this not an inference a fortiori?

If slaughter,

which involves a prohibited labor, overrides Shabbat, should these acts, which involve only a shevut, not override Shabbat!?

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Yom Tov proves otherwise, for on it an act of slaughter [which is prohibited] as a labor is permitted, whereas on it [bringing objects from outside the Shabbat boundary even for the sake of eating, which the Sages prohibited] because of a shevut is prohibited.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua?!

What proof have you brought from a decree enacted by the Sages prohibiting bringing something from outside the boundary, which concerns an optional matter, to the mitzva of offering the Paschal sacrifice?

The Gemara explains how Rabbi Yehoshua brought proof from the prohibition of a shevut on Yom Tov to the mitzva of the Paschal offering:

Rabbi Yehoshua—

in accordance with his own reasoning.

For he said: The joy of Yom Tov is also a mitzva,

and nevertheless it does not override even a rabbinic shevut, since it can be arranged on the previous day. From this he derived that, with regard to the mitzva of offering the Paschal sacrifice, Shabbat should not be overridden for labors that could have been performed the previous day.

And since we find that the Sages did not permit the shevut prohibiting the carrying of objects beyond the boundary, and prohibited bringing food from outside the boundary even for fulfilling the mitzva of rejoicing on Yom Tov, the same law applies: they did not permit bringing the sacrifice from outside the boundary, nor did they permit other shevut restrictions that could have been dealt with the previous day.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: On Yom Tov, a person has only the choice of eating and drinking or sitting and studying.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Divide it: half for eating and drinking and half for the beit-midrash.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both derived their positions from one verse.

One verse says

Deuteronomy 16]

“A solemn assembly for the Lord your God.”

And one verse says

Numbers 29]

“It shall be a solemn assembly for you.”

Rabbi Eliezer maintains:

Its mitzva is

either entirely for the Lord or entirely for you.

And Rabbi Yehoshua maintains: Divide it, half for the Lord and half for you.

Avam—

a mnemonic.

Rabbi Elazar said: Everyone agrees with regard to the solemn assembly,

the festival of Shavuot,

that we also require

“for you,”

What is the reason?

It is the day on which the Torah was given.

And one must rejoice on it through eating and drinking, in order to display his joy on this day on which the Torah was given to Israel.

Rabba said: Everyone agrees that on Shabbat we also require it to be “for you.”

What is the reason? [

Isaiah 58]

“And you shall call Shabbat a delight.”

Rav Yosef said: Everyone agrees that on Purim we also require it to be “for you.”

What is the reason? [

Esther 9]

“Days of feasting and joy”

is written with regard to it.

Mar, the son of Ravina, would sit in a fast throughout the entire year

except for Shavuot,

the festival of Shavuot,

and Purim,

and Purim,

and the eve of Yom Kippur,

the eve of Yom Kippur.

The solemn assembly—

the day on which the Torah was given.

Purim—

“Days of feasting and joy”

is written with regard to it.

The eve of Yom Kippur, as Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: [

Leviticus 23]

“And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month.”

But does one fast on the ninth?

Is it not on the tenth that one fasts?

Rather, this comes to tell you: Whoever eats and drinks on the ninth

the verse considers it for him as though he had fasted on both the ninth and the tenth.

On the day of the solemn assembly, Rav Yosef said: Have them prepare for me

a meal of

a choice calf,

a superior calf, born third to its mother.

He said: If not for this day,

of the giving of the Torah,

which brought about

that I studied Torah and attained distinction—then

how many

many people named

“Yosef”

are there in the marketplace,

and there would be no difference between me and them; I would be on their level!

Every thirty days Rav Sheshet would review his learning,

he would review his studies every thirty days,

and he would lean

he would lean

and stand

while standing

at the doorpost,

on the doorpost,

and say: Rejoice, my soul, rejoice, my soul,

rejoice, my soul, since

for you

for your sake

I have read Scripture,

I have read Scripture, and

for you

for your sake

I have studied,

I have studied.

We challenge this:

Is that so—

is the benefit of Torah study only for the one who studies Torah and not for all creation?

For Rabbi Elazar said: If not for Torah,

heaven and earth would not endure.

As it is stated [

Jeremiah 33]

“If not for My covenant

the study of Torah

day and night,

I would not have established the laws of heaven and earth.”

How, then, could Rav Sheshet say that he studied for the sake of his own soul?

And we answer: Indeed, the existence of all creation depends on Torah study, but

at the outset, when a person performs an act

he performs it with his own welfare in mind.

One who studies intends his personal benefit, but all creation benefits from it as well, even though he does not intend this.

The Gemara returns to discuss the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in our Mishna:

Rav Ashi said: And

even

according to what Rabbi Eliezer also says,

that the joy of

Yom Tov

is

optional

and not a mitzva—

there is a refutation

of his claim that if a Torah labor was permitted for the sake of a mitzva, all the more so a shevut should be permitted.

For one can derive from Yom Tov by means of a kal va-chomer that even a rabbinic shevut should not be permitted for the sake of the Paschal offering if it could have been performed the previous day.

And if on Yom Tov,

which is less stringent,

in which

the Torah

permitted an optional labor

for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov, such as slaughter, kindling, and cooking, and nevertheless

it did not permit [

meaning, the Sages did not permit]

the accompanying shevut,

as they did not permit bringing something from outside the boundary for the sake of Yom Tov, despite the fact that this involves only a rabbinic shevut;

Shabbat,

which is more stringent,

in which

the Torah

permitted only

only

a labor for the sake of a mitzva,

the offering of communal sacrifices—

is it not obvious that it should not permit

on it

the accompanying shevut

even for the sake of a mitzva, since it is more stringent?