Pesachim 68b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

and the burning of its fats

of the Paschal offering overrides Shabbat.

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

that one must hurry and perform it

at its 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 it becomes dark,

but rather we burn them immediately, 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:

They cut

on Shabbat by hand

a wart

that is found on the daily offering [which is a blemish]

in the Temple.

And although cutting the wart involves the labor of shearing, and it could have been done yesterday, nevertheless it is permitted for him to cut it. Since he does this by hand, his action is considered a labor performed in an unusual manner, and it is prohibited on Shabbat only by rabbinic shevut. And they do not decree on account of shevut in the Temple.

But they do not

cut a wart

in the country,

even by hand, because of rabbinic shevut.

And if

he comes to cut

with an implement,

which is the labor of shearing by Torah law —

here and here,

in the Temple and in the country

it is forbidden.

And they disagreed concerning the resolution of the contradiction between cutting the wart of the Paschal offering and cutting the wart of the daily offering,

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina.

One said: This one and that one,

in both offerings, the case is that he comes to cut the wart

by hand.

And it is not difficult.

This

which we learned in our Mishna, that one does not cut the wart of the Paschal offering on Shabbat—the case is

to a

a

moist wart,

for if he comes to cut it with an implement, there is in this the labor of shearing by Torah law; therefore it is forbidden to cut it even in an unusual manner, when he cuts it by hand, and even on the Paschal offering, since it was possible to cut it on the eve of Shabbat.

Whereas

this

which we learned in tractate Eruvin, that one cuts the wart of the daily offering—the case is

to a

a

dry wart,

for there is no prohibition of shearing by Torah law in cutting it, even with an implement. Rather, they decreed not to cut it, whether by hand or with an implement, because of rabbinic shevut. Therefore they permitted cutting it on the daily offering. But specifically by hand and not with an implement, because with an implement he performs “a matter of labor” [the language of Rashi in tractate Eruvin] in repairing the offering.

And one said: This one and that one are [cases of] a moist [wart].

And it is not difficult.

This

which we learned in tractate Eruvin, that it is permitted to cut the wart from the daily offering—the case is when he cuts

by hand,

which is labor performed in an unusual manner. For the prohibition of cutting by hand [which is labor performed in an unusual manner] is only because of shevut, and they did not decree shevut in the Temple.

This

of our Mishna—the case is when he cuts

with an implement,

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

And the Gemara explains why each one did not agree with the other’s resolution:

And according to the one who says

who resolved

“this one is by hand, and this one is with an implement”—

what is the reason he did not say

“this one and that one are by hand, and it is not difficult,

the contradiction, because

this one is [with] a moist [wart]

and

and this one is [with] a dry [wart]?”

He could say to you: [A] dry [wart]—

it crumbles,

it disintegrates, and its removal is not to be regarded as a labor of repair even when he performs the cutting with an implement. Therefore it is impossible to establish the permission to cut the wart of the daily offering as referring to when he does so with a dry wart, since we learned there that it is forbidden to cut it with an implement, but only by hand; whereas according to his words, it would be permitted to cut a dry wart even with an implement.

And according to the one who says

“this one and that one are by hand, and it is not difficult: this one is [with] a moist [wart], and this one is [with] a dry [wart]”—

what is the reason he did not say

“this one and that one are [with] a moist [wart], and it is not difficult: this one is by hand, and this one is with an implement?”

He could say to you:

if you establish our Mishna as saying that it is forbidden to cut the wart on Passover because he does so with an

implement,

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

For

this

already

it teaches there: “If [he cuts] with an implement”—

here and here,

in the Temple and in the country

it is forbidden.

And the other [sage says]: The fact that it teaches “implement” here,

although we already learned this in tractate Eruvin, that it is forbidden with an implement, since

the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua

concerning the accessories of a mitzva that can be made on the eve of Shabbat, whether they override Shabbat

it came to teach us.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer said:

But is this not an inference?—

And if slaughtering,

which is because of labor, overrides Shabbat, should these, which are because of shevut, not override Shabbat?!

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Yom Tov will prove it, for they permitted in it [slaughtering, which is forbidden] because of labor, and it is forbidden in it [to bring things from outside the boundary even for the purpose of eating, since they decreed] because of shevut.

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

What proof [have you brought from a decree that the Sages decreed and prohibited bringing from outside the boundary, which is a matter of] optional activity, to the mitzva of offering the Paschal sacrifice?

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

Rabbi Yehoshua—

according to his own reasoning.

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

and nevertheless it does not override even rabbinic shevut, since it could have been done yesterday. From here he learned concerning the mitzva of offering the Paschal sacrifice that Shabbat is not to be overridden for the sake of offering the Paschal sacrifice through labors that could have been done yesterday.

And since we find that the Sages did not permit the prohibition of shevut of boundaries, and prohibited bringing foodstuffs from outside the boundary even for the fulfillment of the mitzva of joy on Yom Tov, the same law applies: they did not permit bringing the offering from outside the boundary, and likewise they did not permit other forms of shevut that could have been done yesterday.

For it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: A person has on Yom Tov only either eating and drinking or sitting and studying.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Divide it: half for eating and drinking and half for the house of study.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both of them expounded one verse.

One verse says [דברים טז]

Deuteronomy 16]

“A solemn assembly for Hashem your God.”

And one verse says [במדבר כט]

Numbers 29]

“It shall be a solemn assembly for you.”

Rabbi Eliezer holds:

its mitzva is

either entirely for Hashem, or entirely for you.

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Divide it; half for Hashem and half for you.

A mnemonic—

a sign.

Rabbi Elazar said: Everyone agrees concerning 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 concerning Shabbat that we also require “for you.”

What is the reason, [ישעיהו נח]

Isaiah 58]

“And you shall call Shabbat a delight.”

Rav Yosef said: Everyone agrees concerning Purim that we also require “for you.”

What is the reason, [אסתר ט]

Esther 9]

“Days of feasting and joy”

is written concerning it.

Mar, son of Ravina, would sit all year

in a fast, except for the solemn assembly,

the festival of Shavuot,

and Purim,

and Purim,

and the eve of Yom Kippur,

and the eve of Yom Kippur.

The solemn assembly—

the day on which the Torah was given.

Purim—

“Days of feasting and joy”

is written.

The eve of Yom Kippur, as Hiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: [ויקרא כג]

Leviticus 23]

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

And do we fast on the ninth?

But surely we fast on the tenth.

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

the verse ascribes it to him as though he fasted on the ninth and the tenth.

Rav Yosef, on the day of the solemn assembly, said: Make for me

a meal of

a third-born calf,

which is a choice calf, born third to its mother.

He said: If not for this day

of receiving the Torah

which caused

that I should study Torah and become elevated—then

how many

many people called by my name

“Yosef”

there are in the marketplace,

and there would be no difference between me and them; rather, I would be at their level!

Rav Sheshet would review his learning every thirty days,

every thirty days he would review his learning,

and he would lean

he was leaning

and stand

and standing

at the door-bolt,

on the doorpost,

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

rejoice, my soul, since

for you

for you

I have read

I have read Scripture, and

for you

for you

I have repeated

I have repeated.

And we challenge:

Is that so,

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

But Rabbi Elazar said: Had it not been for Torah—

heaven and earth would not have endured.

As it is stated [ירמיהו לג]

Jeremiah 33]

“If not for My covenant,

the study of Torah

day and night—

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

And how did Rav Sheshet say that he studied for the sake of his soul?

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

initially, when a person acts—

he acts with his own self in mind.

For the one who studies intends his personal benefit, but all creation benefits from this, even if he does not intend this.

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

Rav Ashi said: And

even

according to that which Rabbi Eliezer also says,

that the joy of

Yom Tov

is

optional

and not a mitzva—

there is a refutation of his argument

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

For it can be learned from Yom Tov by a kal va-chomer that even rabbinic shevut should not be permitted for the sake of the Paschal offering, if it is possible to perform them yesterday.

And if Yom Tov,

the lenient one,

in which He permitted

the verse

optional labor

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

He did not permit [היינו לא התירו חכמים] [that is, the Sages did not permit]

meaning, the Sages did not permit]

the shevut accompanying it,

for they did not permit bringing from outside the boundary for the sake of Yom Tov, even though there is in this only a rabbinic prohibition of shevut.

Shabbat,

the stringent one,

in which He permitted not

the verse

except

only

mitzva labor

of offering communal sacrifices—

is it not the case that you should not permit

in it

the shevut accompanying it,

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